R/CR.RA/805/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 805 of 2026 ========================================================== MOHANBHAI RAMESHBHAI TAVIYAD & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 13/04/2026 ORDER 1. The present Criminal Revision Application No.805 of 2026 challenges the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026 under Sections 438, 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, by allowing the application filed by the State, cancelled the bail granted to all the three applicant-accused. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Soni along with his assistant submitted that the applicants are all serving in police department and the allegation is of illegal transportation of IMFL from Rajasthan into the State of Gujarat. 2.1 Advocate Mr. Soni submitted it is the allegation of the State that one TATA Punch vehicle containing 312 bottles (79.200 litres) R/CR.RA/805/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026 of IMFL was found in an abandoned condition near Talava Chokdi while being chased by police personnel. The applicants were named in the FIR and got arrested in connection with the alleged offence. 2.2 Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the FIR was filed on 12.01.2026 and the remand application was moved on 13.01.2026. On 22.01.2026, the remand application was rejected and bail was allowed. On 06.02.2026, two revision applications were moved before the Sessions Court as Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2026 and Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026. The order was passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court on 02.03.2026 in Criminal Revision Application No.584 of 2026, whereby the Sessions Court was directed to first decide Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026 and thereafter, to decide Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2026 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant-accused. 2.3 Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the very order of the co- ordinate bench would itself suggest that the application of cancellation of bail was already pending before the Sessions Court. Inspite of that, the Sessions Court instead of deciding the application on the grounds raised entertained the report of the State dated 11.03.2026 and cancelled the bail on 12.03.2026. Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the learned Judge only placed reliance on the report dated 11.03.2026 of the police, where actually, the mandate of this Court was to consider the cancellation of bail by first hearing the grounds which have been in Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026. 2.4 Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the order itself becomes vulnerable, illegal on the face of the record and prejudicial to the R/CR.RA/805/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026 applicants as accused, where Mr. Soni submitted that the grounds raised before the Revision Court were: (no.1) that the order of the lower Court granting the bail was false, illegal, unjust and against the principle of natural justice; (no.2) that the order had been passed without considering the important question of law and facts and the order becomes erroneous since the learned Judge has not considered the Muddamal stock which was found during the raid; (no.3) that the IMFL was of State of Rajasthan and there was a direct connection of the accused for interstate, illegal transaction of the prohibited articles; (no.4) and that the finding of the lower court considering the record case diary, FIR under prohibition article valued at Rs.66,646/- and by considering the principle of bail as rule and jail as an exception, having not found the case against the accused as exception and only to ensure the presence of the accused when the matter was on the state of investigation, allowed the bail thus the State has raised that ground to the finding to contend that the lower Court had not considered the facts of the offence; (no.5) and the learned Judge has not considered the fact that the accused are police persons and that they have tarnished the dignity of the police by their act. The act was against the society and if they are released on bail, then it would send false message to the society. Inspite of that, the bail has been granted; (no.6) considering the gravity of the offence and the punishment, ground has been raised that it has not been case of releasing the R/CR.RA/805/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026 accused on bail at the stage of the production. Further, since the accused were aware of the intricacy of the law and therefore, there are all possibilities of manipulating the evidence. 2.6 Advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the Court was required to pass an order only on these grounds and ought not to have read any other report of the police. 3. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya submitted that the report which was filed on 11.03.2026 was informing the Court regarding the conduct of the accused of the breach of the condition, which was ordered by the lower Court for marking the presence at the concerned police station every first and fifteen day of the English month, since the said condition was not fulfilled and therefore, the police had moved the report which was with the sole purpose to apprise the Court about the conduct of the accused. 3.1 APP Mr. Pandya submitted that the Court was considering the matter for the cancellation of the bail already granted and the very order of the bail was challenged which itself included the conditions along with it. APP Mr. Pandya thus submitted that it cannot be said that the new grounds has been raised for the consideration of the Court. 3.2 Having considered the fact that the co-ordinate bench had directed on 02.03.2026 to decide the Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026 first, which itself would explain that the grounds which had been raised in Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026 were required to be appreciated and entertained for giving reasons for the cancellation of the bail. The order which has been impugned dated 12.03.2026 of the learned 3rd Additional District R/CR.RA/805/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026 and Sessions Judge, Dahod allowing the revision application and ordering the respondent to surrender before the Investigating Officer of Chakaliya Police Station, Taluka Dahod, was observing the fact in para 11 which reads as under: “They have wilfully not abided the condition imposed upon by the learned trial Court while enlarging them on bail, which is evident from the report submitted by the applicant Police Inspector of Chakaliya Police Station. Therefore, present revision application deserves to be allowed and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court of granting bail application of respondent-accused dated 23.01.2026 is hereby set aside. It is pertinent to note that, though the learned advocate for respondent Mr. P.D. Bhatiya was instructed by the Court to make respondents remain present on this day but he stated that, though he contacted the respondents several times, they have not remained present before this Court today. Hence, I answer Issue No:1 in affirmative and for Issue No:2, I pass the following order.” 4. The contention raised by the learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Soni appears to be relevant. The learned Judge has not considered the grounds which have been raised by the State praying for cancellation of the Bail already granted by the lower Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.36 of 2026. 5. In the result, the order dated 12.03.2026 of learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026 of cancelling the bail of the applicants is set aside with a direction that the learned judge may relist the Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2026 on his file and again R/CR.RA/805/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026 decide the revision application on the grounds raised by the State by giving reasons to the grounds raised for the cancellation of the bail. 6. Let the matter be heard and decided preferably within 15 days of the receipt of the writ of this Court. Direct service is permitted. (GITA GOPI,J) PARMAR KRISH/26-SB Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/04/2026 17:32:39