R/CR.RA/719/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 719 of 2026 ========================================================== RAMESHKUMAR NANJIBAHI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 17/03/2026 ORDER 1. By way of the present application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 28.2.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in ACB Case no.06 of 2023 during recording the evidence of the witness vide Exh.15 canceling the bail of the applicant, and to allow the applicant to cross-examine the first informant. 2. Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant being accused no.1 had remained continuously present before the learned Trial Court and had cooperated with the trial proceedings. It is stated that it is not because of the applicant but the illness of advocate that had delayed the trial. Learned advocate for the applicant thus R/CR.RA/719/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026 submitted that the applicant cannot be punished because of conduct of the advocate. Mr. Anandjiwala further stated the advocate was sick and because of ill-health, could not remain present. Reference has also been made of certificate dated 2.3.2026 by Dr. Natwar Modi in connection with the Advocate Mr. Mayank B. Acharya. 2.1 Mr. Vishal Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant submits that as per the Rojnama, it is the first informant who has not remained present and thereafter, bailable warrant has been issued and on service of warrant, he remained present. The examination-in-chief of the informant concluded vide Exh.15 on 2.8.2025. The Muddamal had not reached the Court and therefore, the matter got adjourned. Thereafter, again on 28.2.2026, the Court had recorded that the Muddamal was not before the Court. Mr. Anandjiwala stated that the learned Trial Court had recorded about the conduct of the Nazir of the Court. 2.2 According to Mr. Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant, the trial proceedings has not been delayed because of any of the conduct of the applicant himself. The Muddamal which becomes mandatory requirement in ACB Case was not before the Court for examination and also for reference. The R/CR.RA/719/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026 learned Trial Court Judge was, thus, required to first keep the house in order and thereafter should have insisted for the cross-examination and appearance of the advocate. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the cross- examination in ACB Case through vide conferencing would not be feasible since Muddamal was also required to be verified and accordingly, cross could have been conducted. 2.3 Mr. Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that keeping in mind the long practice of the advocate Mr. Acharya, the Court was required to give sympathetic hearing to the advocate, rather had canceled the bail of the accused and even the surety. 3. Countering the arguments, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned APP has referred to the observations made by the learned Trial Court Judge in the impugned order and submitted that the trial proceedings has been stalled since 7.7.2025 and if at all, the advocate on record could not attend the trial, then, the accused is required to change his advocate so that the trial proceedings goes on non-obstructed. 4. On hearing the submissions of both the sides and having read the impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court R/CR.RA/719/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026 Judge was required to even direct the Nazir to keep the Muddamal ready for the process. The exemption application of the accused Exh.17 was allowed on the ground that the advocate would continue with the cross-examination. The learned Trial Court Judge has made certain observations with regard to adverse practice of the Nazir Department. If at all such process is adverse and not conducive, then, it becomes boundant duty of the Court to first instruct the staff. The accused had asked for the exemption on the day of the order. The learned Trial Court Judge has not observed that the accused was habitually remaining absent or that there was any dispute with regard to identification of the accused. 5. Having considered the fact that the matter is under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and stopping the cross- examination would affect the accused adversely, thus the order impugned dated 28.2.2026 is set aside. The right of cross-examining the witness from the side of accused no.1 is reopened with a direction to the applicant-accused to file an undertaking before the Trial Court that he would keep his advocate on record present for cross-examination of the witness, and in failure of the applicant advocate on record to deal with the matter, the applicant would appoint another R/CR.RA/719/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2026 lawyer or may instruct the proxy lawyer to conduct the cross- examination. 6. With these observations, the present application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted. (GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/03/2026 18:50:01