Jayshreebaa Anirruddhsinh Gohil vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Jayshreebaa Aniruddhsih Gohil, filed an application seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No. 2, Pravinbhai Ravabhai Rabari, by the City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Respondent No. 2 was released on bail on May 24, 2021, with a condition to deposit 25% of the outstanding amount of Rs. 70,94,950/- within one month and the remaining 50% within three months. The applicant contended that this condition was violated as no amount was deposited. An application for cancellation of bail was filed and rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on September 8, 2021, who held that the condition was based on a submission and its violation did not warrant cancellation. The applicant sought to quash both orders. Respondent No. 2's counsel stated that while an affidavit was filed promising deposits, no amount had actually been deposited.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 08.09.2021, rejecting the bail cancellation application, was perverse and illegal. The condition imposed for depositing money was based on a specific statement and commitment made by the respondent No. 2 before the court, which led to the grant of bail. Such a commitment, once acted upon by the court to grant a benefit like bail, partakes the color of a court order and must be honored. The Court found that the Additional Sessions Judge had miserably failed to appreciate this fact and mechanically rejected the application on a perverse ground. The Court noted that the respondent No. 2 had enjoyed freedom without complying with the bail condition and even failed to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- as directed by this Court on 06.04.2022. The allegations against the respondent No. 2 involved siphoning away Rs. 70,94,950/- and forging signatures to operate bank accounts for VAT and GST payments. Therefore, the Court found no option but to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2. The bail bonds were cancelled, and respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender immediately. The impugned order dated 08.09.2021 was quashed and set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the bail cancellation application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 08.09.2021, was legally sustainable, considering the respondent No. 2's failure to comply with the bail condition of depositing a specified amount? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of principles governing bail conditions and the sanctity of statements made before a court). Petitioner's Arguments: - The respondent No. 2 violated the explicit condition of depositing 25% of Rs. 70,94,950/- within one month and the remaining 50% within three months, as stipulated in the bail order dated 24.05.2021. - The subsequent rejection of the bail cancellation application by the Additional Sessions Judge was erroneous and perverse, as it failed to appreciate that a commitment made before a court of law, leading to the grant of bail, must be honored. - The reliance by the Additional Sessions Judge on the judgment in Mahersing or His Successor In Office Intelligence Officer vs. Pradipkumar Bharatlal Poddar Director of M/s Suvidha, 2004 (4) G.L.R. 3332, was ill-conceived and inapplicable to the facts of the present case. - The respondent No. 2 has not deposited any amount even after this Court's direction on 06.04.2022 to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/-, indicating a lack of bona fide. Revenue/State's Arguments: - Learned APP waived service of notice for the respondent-State. - Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 had filed an affidavit dated 16.03.2022, stating willingness to deposit amounts in installments, but admitted that no amount had been deposited as per instructions.