Gujarat High Court
Nasirbibi W/O Ismailbhai … vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 15/07/2026
Pronounced On : 29/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
9050 of 2026
==========================================================
NASIRBIBI W/O ISMAILBHAI ABDULKADARBHAI QURESHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAHUL RAJHANS(12788) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV ORDER
1. This is an application for cancellation of bail
preferred by the present applicant – original complainant
under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita (‘the BNSS’ for short), seeking quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the
learned trial Court i.e. learned Sessions Judge, Chhotaudepur
at Bodeli in Criminal Misc. Application No.51 of 2026,
whereby the learned trial Court has granted anticipatory bail
to the respondent-original accused in connection with FIR
being C.R. No.1184001260291 of 2026 registered with Bodelli
Police Station, District Chhotaudepur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
2.1 Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has
vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has failed
to appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the offence
alleged against the respondent-accused and has mechanically
granted bail. It is submitted that the impugned order has
been passed without proper consideration of the material
available on record, which has adversely affected the ongoing
investigation. It is further contended that the possibility of
the respondent-accused tampering with the prosecution
evidence and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out.
2.2 It is further submitted that while considering the
bail application preferred by the respondent-accused, the
learned trial Court did not adequately examine the evidence
collected during the course of investigation and therefore,
committed a grave error in exercising its discretion in favour
of the accused. The learned advocate has drawn attention to
the serious allegations levelled against the respondent-accused
in the FIR and submitted that the nature and gravity of
such accusations were not properly appreciated by the learned
trial Court while granting bail.
2.3 Referring to the documents and material collected
by the Investigating Officer, learned advocate for the
applicant submitted that ample evidence has been gathered
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
during the investigation, which, prima facie, establishes the
direct involvement of the respondent-accused in the
commission of the alleged offence. Despite the availability of
such incriminating material, the learned trial Court failed to
assign proper weight to the same and erroneously granted
bail to the respondent-accused.
2.4 It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge
has erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent-
accused by completely disregarding the fact that the offence
involves deliberate forgery of legal heirship documents
(pedhinama) intended for public authorities; that the custodial
interrogation of the respondent-accused is strictly necessary to
unearth the conspiracy; that the forged and fabricated
pedhinama has been used as genuine before the concerned
authority; that the respondent-accused has committed the
criminal offence of using a forged document as genuine to
usurp valuable security.
2.5 It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order
granting bail suffers from non-application of mind and
improper appreciation of the material on record. Considering
the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the evidence
collected during investigation and the likelihood of prejudice
to a fair investigation, it is submitted that the present
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
application may be allowed by cancelling the bail granted to
the respondent-accused in the interest of justice.
3.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State has adopted the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate for the applicant and has further submitted
that the impugned order granting bail to the respondent-
accused is contrary to the material available on record. It is
contended that the learned Trial Court has granted bail
without properly appreciating the evidence collected during
the course of investigation and without taking into
consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence
alleged against the respondent-accused.
3.2 It is further submitted that the learned Trial
Court has failed to consider the affidavit filed by the
Investigating Officer, wherein specific grounds were raised
opposing the grant of bail. The contents of the said affidavit,
which were material and relevant for deciding the bail
application, have not been duly considered by the learned
Trial Court while exercising its discretion in favour of the
respondent-accused.
3.3 Learned APP has further submitted that having
regard to the nature of the allegations, the seriousness of the
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
offence, and the material collected during investigation, the
case clearly warranted custodial interrogation of the
respondent-accused. However, despite the necessity of
custodial interrogation, the learned Trial Court proceeded to
release the accused on bail. Such release, according to the
prosecution, is likely to hamper and prejudice the
investigation, particularly when effective custodial
interrogation is still required for unearthing the complete
facts and circumstances of the case.
3.4 It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial
Court has exercised its discretion in an erroneous manner
and that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In
view of the seriousness of the allegations, the requirement of
custodial interrogation, and the larger interest of a fair and
effective investigation, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
allow the present application, cancel the bail granted to the
respondent-accused, and direct that the respondent-accused
be taken into judicial custody in accordance with law.
4.1 Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the applicant and learned APP for respondent-State and upon
perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions
Court as well as the material available on record, this Court
is of the view that the present application has been filed
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions,
without placing on record any cogent material or
demonstrating the existence of any supervening or prevailing
circumstances warranting interference with the order granting
bail. In the absence of any substantive material to justify the
relief sought, the application does not merit consideration.
4.2 Considering the facts of the present case, the
allegations in the FIR are of the year 2026 and the FIR has
been filed on 14.02.2026. It also transpires that after the
names having been inserted in the record, the complainant
had entered into the family settlement on 29.10.2020. It also
transpires that earlier, a complaint was filed and closure
report was submitted on 07.11.2020 and in view of the
family settlement, the disputes have been resolved and the
learned advocate for the applicant has stated that as the
respondent-accused has not complied with the terms of the
family settlement, the present FIR is filed. Further, from the
contents of the FIR, the dispute is of a civil nature, which
has been sought to be given the colour of criminality. The
settlement proceedings have already been taken place between
the parties, as, according to the complainant, the same are
not adhered to by the respondent-accused, it has been
observed in the order that civil dispute is already raised,
which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil
Page 6 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
Court; that the relevant documents are already in the
custody of the investigating agency and revenue authorities
and therefore the custodial interrogation of the respondent-
accused is not required.
4.3 Upon a careful examination of the findings
recorded and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge,
this Court finds that all the relevant facts and circumstances
of the case have been duly considered. The impugned order
reflects proper application of mind to the material available
on record, and detailed as well as cogent reasons have been
assigned by the learned Judge while passing the said order.
This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or
infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court
warranting interference.
4.4 It is well settled that the parameters governing
rejection of a bail application at the initial stage and
cancellation of bail already granted by a competent Court are
distinct and operate in different spheres. Once bail has been
granted, its cancellation can be justified only upon the
existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as
misuse of liberty by the accused or the emergence of
supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation.
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
4.5 In the present case, the learned advocate and the
learned APP appearing for the State has failed to point out
any supervening circumstance that has arisen subsequent to
the grant of bail. Furthermore, it is not even the case of the
applicant or the State that the respondent-accused has
misused the liberty granted by the Court, breached any of
the conditions imposed, tampered with evidence, influenced
witnesses, or otherwise acted in a manner prejudicial to the
fair conduct of the proceedings. In the absence of any such
material, no case is made out for cancellation of the bail
granted by the competent Court.
5.1 It would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajwar Vs. Waseem
reported in 2024 INSC 438, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed that the same Court which granted bail to an
accused can cancel the bail if there are serious allegations
against him, even if the accused has not misused the bail. If
there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he
has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can
be canceled. However, once bail is granted, it ought not to be
canceled in a mechanical manner. An unreasonable or
perverse order of bail may invite interference by the Apex
Court. Personal liberty is one of the cherished Constitutional
freedoms, and once bail is granted during the pendency of
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
the trial, it must only be retracted in the face of grave
circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said
decision, in paragraphs 27 and 28, has observed as under :
“27. The considerations that weigh with
the appellate Court for setting aside the
bail order on an application being moved
by the aggrieved party include any
supervening circumstances that may have
occurred after granting relief to the
accused, the conduct of the accused while
on bail, any attempt on the part of the
accused to procrastinate, resulting in
delaying the trial, any instance of threats
being extended to the witnesses while on
bail, any attempt on the part of the
accused to tamper with the evidence in any
manner. We may add that this list is only
illustrative and not exhaustive. However,
the court must be cautious that at the
stage of granting bail, only a prima facie
case needs to be examined and detailed
reasons relating to the merits of the case
that may cause prejudice to the accused,
ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state
that the bail order should reveal the
factors that have been considered by thePage 9 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
Court for granting relief to the accused.
28. In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a three-
Judges bench of this Court, has observed
that the power to grant bail under Section
439 Cr.P.C is of wide amplitude and the
High Court or a Sessions Court, as the
case may be, is bestowed with considerable
discretion while deciding an [2024] 5 S.C.R.
593 Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
application for bail. But this discretion is
not unfettered. The order passed must
reflect due application of judicial mind
following well established principles of law.
In ordinary course, courts would be slow to
interfere with the order where bail has
been granted by the courts below. But if it
is found that such an order is illegal or
perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant
material, the appellate Court would be well
within its power to set aside and cancel
the bail.”
5.2 In the case of Gurcharan Singh and others Vs.
State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to observe that
the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse
Page 10 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
order is totally different from the concept of canceling the
bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself
or because of some new facts are requiring such cancellation.
In Paragraph No.16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court has
observed as under :
“16. Section 439 of the new Code confers
special powers on High Court or Court of
Session regarding bail. This was also the
position under Section 498 CrPC of the old
Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate
refuses to grant bail to an accused person,
the High Court or the Court of Session
may order for grant of bail in appropriate
cases. Similarly under Section 439(2) of the
new Code, the High Court or the Court of
Session may direct any person who has
been released on bail to be arrested and
committed to custody. In the old Code,
Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat
different language when it said that a
High Court or Court of Session may cause
any person who has been admitted to bail
under sub-section (1) to be arrested and
may commit him to custody. In other
words, under Section 498(2) of the old
Code, a person who had been admitted toPage 11 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
bail by the High Court could be committed
to custody only by the High Court.
Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail
by a Court of Session, it was only the
Court of Session that could commit him to
custody. This restriction upon the power of
entertainment of an application for
committing a person, already admitted to
bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code
under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2)
of the new Code a High Court may commit
a person released on bail under Chapter
XXXIII by any Court including the Court
of Session to custody, if it thinks
appropriate to do so. It must, however, be
made clear that a Court of Session cannot
cancel a bail which has already been
granted by the High Court unless new
circumstances arise during the progress of
the trial after an accused person has been
admitted to bail by the High Court. If,
however, a Court of Session had admitted
an accused person to bail, the State has
two options. It may move the Sessions
Judge if certain new circumstances have
arisen which were not earlier known to the
State and necessarily, therefore, to thatPage 12 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
Court. The State may as well approach the
High Court being the superior Court under
Section 439(2) to commit the accused to
custody. When, however, the State is
aggrieved by the order of the Sessions
Judge granting bail and there are no new
circumstances that have cropped up except
those already existed, it is futile for the
State to move the Sessions Judge again
and it is competent in law to move the
High Court for cancellation of the bail.
This position follows from the subordinate
position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis
the High Court.”
5.3 The aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Puran Vs. Rambilas & Anr., reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 338 as well as in case of Abdul Basit alias
Raju & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Cahudhary & Anr.,
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754.
5.4 In the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of M.P. ,
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 797, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under in Para-19 :
“19. It needs no special emphasis to state
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
that there is distinction between the
parameters for grant of bail and
cancellation of bail. There is also a
distinction between the concept of setting
aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse
order and cancellation of an order of bail
on the ground that the accused has
misconducted himself or certain supervening
circumstances warrant such cancellation. If
the order granting bail is a perverse one
or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be
annulled by the superior court. We have
already referred to various paragraphs of
the order passed by the High Court. We
have already held that the learned trial
Judge has undefined misconstrued the order
passed by the High Court. However, we
may hasten to add that the learned Single
Judge has taken note of certain
supervening circumstances to cancel the
bail, but we are of the opinion that in the
obtaining factual matrix the said exercise
was not necessary as the grant of bail was
absolutely illegal and unjustified as the
court below had enlarged the accused on
bail on the strength of the order passed in
Ranjeet Singh v. State of M.P. [RanjeetPage 14 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
Singh v. State of M.P., MCRC No. 701 of
2013, order dated 1- 2-2013 (MP)]
remaining oblivious of the parameters for
grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC. It is
well settled in law that grant of bail
though involves exercise of discretionary
power of the court, yet the said exercise
has to be made in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course.”
5.5 At this juncture, the observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana, reported in 1995(1) SCC 349, is required
to be recollected. It was observed therein that very cogent
and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. The
grounds for cancellation of bail though are broad, but
illustrative and not exhaustive; are interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or
abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any
manner. The Court should satisfy for availability of the
grounds for satisfying of the bail or cancellation of the bail.
The bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner, without any grounds in a considering or
supervening circumstances, which affects the very principle of
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
fair trial.
6. In the present case, the impugned order passed by
the learned Trial Court is founded upon sound legal
principles and is supported by cogent and well-reasoned
findings. This Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or illegality
in the said order so as to warrant interference in exercise of
its jurisdiction.
7. It is also pertinent to note that no allegation has
been made by the original complainant-applicant that the
respondent-accused has, in any manner, misused the liberty
granted to him pursuant to the order of bail. The present
application appears to have been filed merely on the basis of
assumptions and presumptions, without placing on record any
substantive material or supervening circumstance justifying
cancellation of bail. More particularly, the learned Trial
Court, while enlarging the accused on bail, has imposed
appropriate and stringent conditions to safeguard the interests
of the prosecution and to ensure the fair conduct of the
proceedings.
8. Furthermore, it is a settled principle of law that
while considering matters relating to bail, the Court should
refrain from undertaking a detailed appreciation of the
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9050/2026 CAV ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
evidence on record, as any such observation may prejudice
the case of either side at the stage of trial. Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground is
made out to interfere with the order granting bail.
9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the applicant has failed to make out any case warranting
interference with the impugned order granting bail in favour
of the respondent-accused. No sufficient grounds, reasons, or
supervening circumstances have been brought on record so as
to justify cancellation of bail or to persuade this Court to
take a different view than that taken by the learned Trial
Court.
10. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.
Rule is discharged.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SRILATHA
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:10:16 IST 2026
