1. By this application, the applicant has challenged order dated 28th April, 2011 made by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5840 of 2011 and seeks cancellation of the bail granted by the said order.
2. Mr.
Gaurav Chudasama, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that at the time of hearing the application for anticipatory bail before this Court, on behalf of the respondent No.1 accused, wrong submissions have been made before the Court. Attention was invited to the order dated 4th May, 2010 made by the Collector, Rajkot whereby he had directed registration of a first information report against the respondent accused. Referring to the communication at page 76 of the compilation, it was submitted that under the said communication, the Sub-Registrar had informed the Mamlatdar that the documents in question have not been registered and that against the said entry, other documents have been registered which clearly indicates that the sale deeds in the present case are apparently forged. The learned advocate submitted that on the basis of the alleged sale deeds, the respondent accused had obtained succession certificate and as such the offence involved in the present case is a serious one. In the circumstances the respondent was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. It was accordingly under that the respondent has wrongly been granted anticipatory bail by the aforesaid order dated 28th April, 2011. It was pointed out that subsequently, further offences had been added against the accused, however, the same were neither reflected in the application seeking anticipatory bail nor were the same pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor during the course of hearing. It was accordingly submitted that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.1 is required to be cancelled in the interest of justice.
3. As noted hereinabove, the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by a co-ordinate bench in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5840 of 2011. The application has not been filed on the ground that there is any breach of any of the conditions granting bail or that any supervening circumstances have intervened calling for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. Nor is it the case of the applicant that on the basis of any subsequent events, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent accused is required to be cancelled. It is settled legal position that once anticipatory bail has been granted by this court, it is not for the court to decide whether the bail should have been granted. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. The only material considerations in such a situation would be whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. (Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (1984) 1 SCC 284).
4. As noticed earlier, the present application has been filed by the applicant on the ground that the anticipatory bail granted by this Court vide order dated 28th April, 2011 has wrongly been granted and not on the ground of any supervening circumstances having intervened calling for cancellation of bail. In the circumstances, no case is made out for grant of the relief prayed for in the petition. If the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 28th April, 2011 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5840 of 2011, the remedy lies before the superior forum and not before this High Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons the application fails and is accordingly summarily rejected.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Top