R/CR.MA/6409/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 Reserved On : 16/01/2026 Pronounced On : 19/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 6409 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/16452/2024 ========================================================== RANGATSINH JALAMSINH VAGHELA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 19/01/2026 CAV ORDER 1. Rule returnable forthwith. The applicant herein has preferred the present application under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023 praying for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was granted to the respondent no. 2 accused by the coordinate bench of this court, vide order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16452 of 2024 on 22.08.2024, and consequently, to quash and set aside the said order. Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/6409/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent State. The respondent no.2 accused was initially served the notice. However, he had not remained present, and as such, a fresh notice came to be issued by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2025. However, thereafter also, he did not remain present before the court. On the day, when the matter came up for hearing also, respondent no. 2 accused did not remain present before the court. 3. At the outset, the respondent no. 2 – Ganpatbhai Dahyabhai Desai was granted anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate bench of this court, vide order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16452 of 2024 on 22.08.2024. The co-ordinate bench in its order had mentioned that, the applicant therein – respondent no. 2 herein, was ready and willing to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs out of total misappropriated amount of Rs.29 lakhs, within a period of six months pursuant to which, the court had p. 2 R/CR.MA/6409/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 considered the said submission and had released the respondent no. 2 herein on anticipatory bail by executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions wherein condition no. (g) reads as below: “(g) shall :le an undertaking before the concerned court that at the time of executing the bond, the applicant shall deposit sum of Rs.15,00,000/- within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of present order.” 4. As submitted by learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya, the respondent no. 2 herein had not complied with the said condition, and had thereby committed breach of the same. A report was sought by this court from the learned Sessions Judge of Banaskantha at Deesa as to whether the respondent no. 2 had complied with the said condition (g) or not, to which, a communication from the learned Sessions Judge of Banaskantha at Deesa was received by this court. It is mentioned that, the respondent no. 2 accused had neither deposited the amount of Rs.15 lakhs nor had given an undertaking as regards the same. The p. 3 R/CR.MA/6409/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 learned Sessions Judge had also sought report from the concerned police station, however, the respondent no. 2 accused had not given any undertaking for payment of Rs.15 lakhs before the concerned Investigating O>icer also. 5. Thus, considering the fact that, the FIR in question which was lodged by the applicant herein against the respondent no. 2 accused mentioned about the respondent no. 2 accused having misappropriated the amount of Rs.29,28,991.73 in the capacity of Secretary of the Dhanpur Doodh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Ltd., upon his own submission and willingness to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs out of the said amount, the co-ordinate bench of this court had considered his request, and had enlarged him on anticipatory bail. However, thereafter, as discussed earlier, the respondent no. 2 accused having committed breach of the bail condition and also not having remained present before this court inspite of notices having been served twice, this appears to be a :t p. 4 R/CR.MA/6409/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 case to cancel his anticipatory bail, which was granted by virtue of order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16452 of 2024 on 22.08.2024. 6. In the event, the present application is allowed. The anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no. 2 accused by this court vide order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16452 of 2024 on 22.08.2024 is hereby cancelled. Consequently, the Investigating O>icer of Deesa (Rural) at Banaskantha who had investigated the o>ence registered vide FIR No.11195019240606, is directed to arrest the accused in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) ANKIT SHAH p. 5