R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2140 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: sd/- HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================================== SHOIAB MOHAMMAD YUSUF DOLA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR ADITYA A ASTHAVADI(12915) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR.HIMANSHU PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 10/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application. B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed p. 1 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 by the learned District and Sessions Court, Bharuch in CRMA No.827 of 2025 cancelling the regular bail granted vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed in CRMA No.1506 of 2025 passed by the ld.JMFC granting regular bail to the applicant vide order dated 08.10.2025 in connection with offence registered at Bharuch City ‘A’ Division Police Station, District – Bharuch vide C.R.No.11199010250535 of 2025 for offence punishable under sections 409, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. C) Pending hearing and till final disposal of this petition be pleased to stay the further operation and execution of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Bharuch in CRMA No.827 of 2025. D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer (C) above may kindly be granted. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of the present petition are such that the FIR being C.R.No. 11199010250535 of 2025 came to be registered with Bharuch City ‘A’ Division Police Station, District – Bharuch on 30th May, 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the IPC. After lodgement of the F.I.R., the petitioner came to be arrested in connection with the same on 23rd July, 2025. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application seeking regular bail before the learned trial Court which p. 2 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 was dismissed by the learned trial court. The petitioner then approached the learned Sessions Court seeking regular bail, which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court seeking regular bail and the said application came to be withdrawn since this Court was not inclined to use discretion in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the investigation. The investigating agency concluded the investigation and submitted a Charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other co-accused. After the filing of the Charge-sheet, the petitioner again approached the learned trial Court seeking regular bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1506 of 2025 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch vide order dated 08.10.2025 allowed the said application and the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the said order, the prosecution approached the learned Sessions Court, Bharuch by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.827 of 2025 under Section 483(3) of the BNSS. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 allowed the said application filed by the prosecution and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, initially the petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Application. However, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the order rejecting and cancelling the bail is an interlocutory order against which the revision application is not maintainable and thus, rejected the application filed by the petitioner and the other co- p. 3 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 accused. In the interregnum, the Coordinate Bench has extended the period for the petitioner and the other co- accused to surrender. After the rejection of revision application, the petitioner has filed present petition challenging the order of learned Sessions Court whereby the bail granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that after filing of the Charge-sheet by the Investigating Agency, the petitioner had approached the learned trial Court seeking regular bail. The learned trial Court after considering the merits of the matter including seriousness of the offence and the role played by the petitioner in offence along with a fact that the investigation was over and the trial was not likely to conclude in near future, ordered to enlarge the petitioner on bail. At the time of hearing of bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court, ample opportunities of hearing was given to the prosecution and the learned Public Prosecutor was also heard and thereafter, the learned trial Court by exercising the discretion vested in it had allowed the application filed by the petitioner and had ordered the petitioner to be released on bail. Against the said order, the prosecution has preferred an application before the learned Sessions Court under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Court and the bail granted to the petitioner came to be cancelled. He submitted that as per settled legal position, the bail once granted to the accused cannot be cancelled except when p. 4 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 the learned trial Court has taken irrelevant aspects into consideration for the grant of bail. The bail once granted to the accused cannot be cancelled mechanically. He submitted that the question of revocation of the bail granted to the accused would arise only if the order pass by the concerned Court granting the bail is unreasoned order or is a perverse order. In the present case, the learned trial Court has given cogent reason for grant of bail to the petitioner and has also taken all the relevant aspects including the seriousness of offence alleged against the petitioner, role played by the petitioner in commission of offence and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner into consideration. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court granting bail to the petitioner in no terms can be said to be an unreasoned order or a perverse order. Therefore, the learned Sessions Court ought not to have passed the impugned order. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Court while passing the impugned order has heavily relied upon the fact that prior to the filing of Charge-sheet, the application filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail had been rejected up to this Court. However, after the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner earlier, the investigation was concluded by the investigating agency and the Charge- sheet was filed and therefore, the petitioner was well within his rights to renew his request for grant of bail and the learned trial court had rightly allowed the said application filed by the petitioner after taking all the relevant factors into consideration. He, therefore, submitted that the order impugned in the present petition suffers from the patent p. 5 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 error in not considering the settled legal position. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the order impugned in the present petition. 3.1 Learned senior counsel has sought to rely upon the following judgements in support of his submissions:- 1. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Selection Committee 825 2. Abhimanue Etc. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2037 3. Bhagirathsinh s/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284 4. Viruprakashappa Gouda and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406 5. P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791 4. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Hardik Dave has opposed the present petition inter alia contending that the petitioner herein was employed on a contractual basis as a MGNREGA Technical Assistant. It was the duty of the petitioner along with other co-accused to supervise the work and ensure its completion. Upon completion, they were responsible for issuing a C.C. (Completion Certificate). However, the present accused has not issued a single C.C. nor have they visited any sites. In collusion with other co- accused, despite knowing that the agency had not provided p. 6 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 prescribed material, they intentionally submitted false bills to the Government as genuine and for that purpose, he received the amount of Rs.5,74,000/- from Jalaram and Murlidhar Enterprises. And certain documents were also recovered during the course of the investigation which revealed the involvement and complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question. The offence committed by the petitioner and another co-accused had societal repercussions which are on a large scale. He further submitted that prior to filing an application for grant of bail before the learned trial Court which was allowed vide order dated 08.10.2025, the petitioner had filed similar such applications before the learned trial Court, learned Sessions Court and this Court and before all the three forums, the petitioner had been unsuccessful. The very same learned trial court had dismissed the earlier application filed by the petitioner inter alia on the ground of seriousness of the offence against the petitioner. After having dismissed the earlier application filed by the petitioner the very same trial Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 had allowed the successive application filed by the petitioner for bail merely because Charge-sheet was filed in the interregnum. It is settled law that merely filing of Charge-sheet cannot be said to be a change in circumstances which would entitle an accused for grant of bail. The learned trial Court while allowing the application filed by the petitioner has failed to note any other change in circumstances. It is settled legal position that while considering an application filed by the accused, seriousness of the offence alleged as well as the role p. 7 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 attributed to the accused is also required to be taken into consideration. However, the learned trial Court had not discussed any such aspects in its order granting bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the prosecution had approached the learned Sessions Court by filing an application under Section 483(3) of the BNSS and learned Sessions Court vide an elaborate order impugned in the present petition, has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court granting bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is an influential person and there are all chances, he may try to temper with the case of the prosecution. He submitted that the learned Sessions Court has rightly passed an order impugned in the present petition by considering the seriousness of offence as alleged against the petitioner and therefore, the same requires no interference at the hands of this Court. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 6. It is no more res integra that bail once granted to the accused cannot be cancelled mechanically. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Shabeen Ahmed vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 (4) SCC 172 as well as in its judgment in the case of Ajwar Vs. Waseem and Another reported in 2024 (10) SCC 768 has held that bail once granted ought not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he p. 8 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. It is in this context that the merits of the order impugned in the petition as well as merits of the order passed by the learned trial Court granting the bail to the petitioner are required to be examined. 7. The F.I.R. in question came to be lodged against the petitioner and other co-accused on 30th May, 2025. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that two agencies namely Murlidhar Enterprises and Jalaram Enterprises had carried the construction work of road under MGNREGA Scheme. Those two agencies were required to undertake work of only one road in village. They did such work into 336 compartments using the material approved for the work. They had also raised false bills for the said work showing purchase of material and had thus siphoned off the amount of Rs.19,64,575/-. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other co-accused have neglected their duties by failing to conduct site visits or issue legitimate C.C. and deliberately submitted fraudulent bills to the Government. It is the further case of the prosecution that with the said modus operandi similar such scam has been committed in 56 other villages and the total amount of Rs.7.30 Crores of the public money has been siphoned away. Page 9 of 12 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 8. Perusal of the order impugned in the present petition indicates that mainly three factors have weighed by the learned Sessions Court in passing the impugned order, which read thus:- 1. seriousness of the offence alleged 2. role played by the petitioner in the offence 3. earlier application filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned trial Court and the observation of the learned trial Court, and these valid factors have not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while passing the order granting bail to the petitioner. If the order passed by the learned trial Court granting bail to the petitioner is perused, it appears that the learned trial Court made the observations that the offence alleged against the petitioner is a serious economic offence and it is an offence against the society and is punishable with the life imprisonment and that the petitioner is the co-accused in the offence. Against this the learned trial Court has observed that seriousness of the offence alone may not be a sole ground to reject the bail. And as per the settled legal principles, until the guilt of the accused is proved, the accused is presumed to be innocent. The learned trial Court has also taken aspect that the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2025 and has undergone incarceration for 90 days. The investigation of the offence is over and Charge-sheet is filed and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near future. Page 10 of 12 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 9. Thus, the learned Sessions Court does not appear to be correct in observing that the learned trial Court has not taken the aspect of seriousness of offence and the role played by the petitioner in consideration. The learned trial Court while considering the application for bail filed by the accused is required to strike the balance between the interest of the society and the personal liberty of the accused. It is required to be noted that the prosecution has cited as many as 284 witnesses in the Charge-sheet and the trial of the offence had not commenced when the learned trial Court passed an order granting bail to the petitioner and the petitioner had already undergone incarceration for a period of 90 days as on that day. Considering the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution there is no possibility of the trial of the offence getting concluded in the near future. Therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner. Having regard to reasons given by the learned trial Court for granting the bail to the petitioner, those reasons cannot be termed as perverse. Learned Public Prosecutor is also not in a position to demonstrate any perversity in the order of the learned trial Court which would render the order in question to be unsustainable. The order of learned trial Court being examined on the touch stones referred to herein above, it cannot at all said to be an unreasoned order or a perverse order. So far as the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the petitioner in the learned trial Court is concerned, the learned trial Court in its order has clearly observed that p. 11 R/SCR.A/2140/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026 the investigation was at a nascent stage at the relevant time and thereafter, the Charge-sheet being filed by the Investigating Agency, the order in question came to be passed by the learned trial Court. Merely because the learned trial Court has dismissed the earlier application filed by the applicant citing the pendency of the investigation, it could not be said that the learned trial Court ought not have considered the successive application filed by the petitioner on that ground alone. The learned Sessions Court while passing the impugned order had not taken the aspect of prolonged incarceration of the petitioner into consideration. The offence being economical offence, it appears that this aspect has heavily weighed with the learned Sessions Court while passing the impugned order. However, merely because the offence being an economic offence, the accused cannot be denied a legitimate right to bail. More particularly, when there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, the order impugned in the present petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. sd/- (M. R. MENGDEY,J) NABILA p. 12 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: NABILABANU MOHAMADNOOR PATNIJAMAT(HC00630), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 17:36:53