Heard Mr. K.B.Anandjiwala, learned advocate for Mr. Vipul Modi, learned advocate for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr.S.A.Pandya, learned APP for the State.
The petitioners have preferred this application to quash and set aside the order dt. December 13, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Banaskantha at Palanpur. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners in respect of the offences registered vide CR.No. 14 of 1992 with Vadgam Police Station on the ground that the petitioners have deliberately committed breach of the conditions of the bail. Considering the observations made in Para 6 of the order under revision, it is clear that the petitioners did not report to the concerned Police Station as directed, while releasing them on bail. The petitioners accused were directed to report to the Police Station on 1st and 15th day of every month. The petitioner no.1 Gulabsinh Manaji Solanki reported to the Vadgam Police Station on 15-8-95 and on 9-11-95 and thus twice onlyl, during the period of three years, from 7-7-92 to 9-11-95, the petitioner no.1 reported to the said Police Station on two days only. The petitioner no.2 Pravinsinh Chelaji Solanki committed the breach of conditions of bail by reporting only for five days during the period for more than three years. Apart, breach of the condition of reporting to the Police Station, the petitioner accused Gulabsinh Manaji Solanki has threatened the prosecution witness Dhanrajbhai Ghemarbhai to kill him and a complaint in this regard had been lodged against him for the offence under Sec. 506(2) read with Sec.114 of Indian Penal Code vide CR.No. 79/95 of Vadgam Police Station. District Police Officer has made elaborately report to the effect that the petitioners accused have not complied with the conditions of the bail. The petitioners accused have also accepted these lapses of conditions of bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly cancelled the bail of the petitioners.
Mr. K.B.Anandjiwala, learned advocate submitted that the petitioners should be pardoned for their lapses. This cannot be permissible under the law. It is crystal clear that the petitioners have committed the breach of conditions of the bail and thereby they have misused the liberty granted to each of them.
In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the application. Hence rejected.
Date: 19-12-1996.(D.G.KARIA, J.)