Gujarat High Court
Vijaykumar Karsanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 07/07/2026
Pronounced On : 10/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
19276 of 2025
==========================================================
VIJAYKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL B MEHTA(5319) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, 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), for cancellation of bail granted
by the Investigating Officer to the accused-respondent, in
connection with the FIR being CR No.-11195010250066 of
2025 registered with Palanpur City West Police Station,
District Banaskantha for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 294(B), 506(2), 465, 467 and 468 of the
Indian Penal Code (`the IPC‘ for short).
2.1 It is the case of the applicant that the applicant
is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of immovable
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
properties; the accused introduced himself as owner of
certain properties and induced the applicant into a
transaction of sale for a total consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/-
(Rupees four crores only) and executed a notarized banakhat
dated 16.09.2021; the applicant paid and transferred to the
respondent-accused a total sum and value of Rs.3,62,00,000/-
(Rupees three crores sixty two lakhs only); it was later
revealed that the said properties were sold and resold to
another party and despite this, the respondent deceitfully
executed sale documents in favour of the applicant; and
though the sale deed was executed, the respondent has
deliberately withheld the possession with respect to one
property; on being confronted, the respondent abused the
applicant in filthy language and also extended threats to kill
him. Hence, the FIR was filed by the applicant-complainant.
The respondent-accused filed the anticipatory bail application,
which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Banaskantha by the impugned order, which is challenged by
way of this application.
It is averred in the application that the
respondent-accused had obtained anticipatory bail by
suppressing the fact that he had already alienated part of
the property prior to executing documents with the applicant
and committed grave fraud; the respondent has refused to
cooperate with investigation, withheld possession of the
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
property and continued to harass and intimidate the
applicant; that the offence involves cheating and breach of
trust to the tune of more than Rs.3,62 crores, which is a
grave and serious economic offence affecting public trust and
warrants custodial interrogation; that the accused is likely to
tamper with the witnesses and evidence, if protection
continues and there is a reasonable apprehension that if he
remains at large, he may use his liberty to tamper with
evidence, influence witnesses or engage in similar fraudulent
activities, thereby posing a threat to society at large. It is,
therefore, prayed to grant this application and cancel the bail
granted to the accused.
3.1 Learned advocate for the applicant is not present
when the matter is called out.
3.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State has submitted that the impugned order granting
bail to the respondent-accused is contrary to the material
available on record. In view of the seriousness of the
allegations 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.
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
4. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent-accused has opposed the present application and
submitted that the impugned order granting bail is a well-
reasoned and speaking order passed upon due consideration of
the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that
the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously
and in accordance with settled principles of law and,
therefore, no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction.
It is further submitted that while passing the
impugned order, the learned Trial Court has extensively
considered all relevant aspects, including the nature of
allegations, the material collected during investigation, and
the submissions advanced by both sides. After appreciating
the entire material available on record, the learned Trial
Court found it appropriate to enlarge the respondent-accused
on bail. Hence, it cannot be said that the order suffers from
any illegality, perversity, or non-application of mind so as to
justify cancellation of bail.
It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed
to point out any supervening circumstance warranting
cancellation of bail. In particular, it is not the case of the
State that the respondent-accused has violated or flouted any
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
of the conditions imposed while granting bail. There is no
allegation that the respondent-accused has attempted to
tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, obstruct the course
of justice, or misuse the liberty granted by the Court.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
is submitted that no case is made out for cancellation of
bail. The present application, being devoid of merits, deserves
to be rejected and the bail granted to the respondent-accused
may kindly be continued.
4.1 Having heard the learned APP appearing for the
respondent-state and learned advocate for the respondent-
accused and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as
the material available on record, this Court is of the view
that the present application has been filed 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.
Considering the entire allegations in the FIR, the
dispute pertains to transaction of sale for a total
consideration of Rs.4 crores and the same is with regard to
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
execution of notarized Banakhat dated 16.09.2021. It is the
case of the applicant that he has transferred Rs.3,62,00,000/-
by way of cash, cheque and transfer of valuable immovable
properties. It has been stated in the FIR that the possession
of the property is not being handed over to the applicant
and the Civil Suit for cancellation of sale deed is also filed.
The learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail, has observed
that the entire dispute is of a civil nature and has been
given colour of criminal nature.
Moreover, it is not the case of the present
applicant-original complainant that the respondent-accused
has, at any point of time, tampered with the evidence,
attempted to influence or intimidate witnesses, obstructed the
course of justice, or committed breach of any of the
conditions imposed while granting bail. In the absence of any
such supervening circumstance or material demonstrating
misuse of liberty by the respondent-accused, the present
application seeking cancellation of bail appears to have been
filed merely on the basis of conjectures and apprehensions,
which cannot constitute a valid ground for cancellation of bail
in law.
4.2 It is well settled that the parameters governing
rejection of a bail application at the initial stage and
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
cancellation of bail already granted by a competent
Court/authority 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.
4.3 Furthermore, it is not even the case of the applicant or
the State that the respondent-accused has misused the
liberty granted by the authority, 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.
4.4 In the case of P. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Anr., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 552, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has enumerated the circumstances, when bail
could be canceled and one of the conditions stated therein is
the misuse of the liberty granted to the accused concerned by
the Court by involving himself in a subsequent crime.
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
4.5 Further, 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 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 thePage 8 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
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 the
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 mustPage 9 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
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.”
4.6 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
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 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,Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
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 to
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 ChapterPage 11 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
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 that
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 subordinatePage 12 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis
the High Court.”
4.7 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.
4.9 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
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 bePage 13 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
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. [Ranjeet
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.”
4.8 At this juncture, the observations made by the
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
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
and one of the possibility is accused being absconded. The
bail once granted, should not in a mechanical manner, cancel
the bail, without any grounds or supervening circumstances,
which affects the very principle of fair trial.
4.9 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
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.
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19276/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
undefined
5. 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.
6. In view of the above, this application deserves to
be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SRILATHA
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Fri Jul 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 11 04:20:24 IST 2026
