Purposive Interpretation Necessary: High Court at Calcutta Clarifies Arbitration Scope “If the Testimony is True, We Act on It”: Kerala High Court Upholds Convictions in Divakaran Murder Case State Cannot Utilize Private Land Without Legal Acquisition and Compensation: High Court Upholds Lower Courts’ Rulings Delhi High Court Stresses ‘Procedure is the Handmaid of Justice’ in Allowing New Evidence in IFFCO TOKIO Case Mere Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Allahabad High Court Acquits Rajveer Singh in Murder Case Non-Compliance with Labor Laws Cannot Deny Compensation for Informal Workers: Bombay High Court in Motor Accident Case Limitation Period Starts from Fraud Discovery, Not Sale Execution,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Testamentary Court’s Role is Limited to Verifying Testamentary Disposition: Calcutta High Court Declares Appellant Cannot Say at One Time That a Process Is Valid to Gain an Advantage and Then Turn Around and Say It Is Invalid When the Result Is Unfavorable,” Rules High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh A humane approach is warranted in cases involving senior citizens: High Court Grants Relief in Bank Loan Recovery Case, Allows Installment Repayments Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act is Mandatory”: High Court Acquits Accused in Ganja Case Unregistered Lease Deed Admissible Under Section 90 Evidence Act: Orissa High Court Restores Permanent Injunction Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used as "Backdoor Appeal" to Introduce New Evidence in Land Acquisition Cases: Supreme Court Payment Under Minimum Wages Act Does Not Establish Employment Relationship: High Court on Res Judicata in Labour Court Proceedings Taxation Law | Reopening Assessment Beyond Four Years Requires Proof of Failure to Disclose: Delhi High Court Rigors of Section 37 Cannot Override Medical Priority: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail on Medical Grounds in NDPS Case Consumer Law | Mere Deterioration of Condition Post-Surgery Does Not Imply Medical Negligence Without Proof of Lack of Skill or Care: Supreme Court Supreme Court Declares Accessibility Rules for Disabled Must Be Mandatory, Strikes Down Voluntary Standards as "Ultra Vires" Court's Role Under Section 11(6A) is Limited to Verifying Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Refers Dispute to Arbitration Section 37 of the Partnership Act Entitles Outgoing Partner to Profits Derived from Firm Assets Post-Dissolution Until Final Settlement: Supreme Court Media Cannot Act as a Parallel Court: Kerala High Court Examines Media’s Right to Report Pending Criminal Cases and Court Proceedings

'Strong Reasons' Needed for Bail Cancellation: High Court of Gujarat Upholds Anticipatory Bail in Rs.90 Lakhs Fraud Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Gujarat, presided over by the Honorable Mr. Justice J.C. Doshi, has upheld the anticipatory bail granted to Rakesh @ Govind Banwarilal Dhandhariya in a case involving allegations of financial fraud amounting to Rs.90 Lakhs. The court emphasized the necessity of "strong reasons" for the cancellation of bail, distinguishing between the refusal to grant bail and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted.

In the case titled Rajnish S/O Sawal Lilha Versus Rakesh @ Govind Banwarilal Dhandhariya & 1 other(s), the petitioner sought the cancellation of anticipatory bail, which was previously granted by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. The petitioner argued that the bail was granted on untenable grounds without adequately considering the respondent's past offenses and the significant amount involved in the alleged fraud.

However, in its order dated February 1, 2024, the court observed, "Cancellation of bail requires strong reasons; the court cannot cancel the bail mechanically." This observation was in line with the principles laid down in several precedents, such as Bhagirathsinh S/O Mahipat Singh vs State Of Gujarat and Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak.

The respondent's defense highlighted his acquittal in related cheque cases, asserting that there had been no misuse of the granted bail and no breach of its conditions. This stance was crucial in the court's decision to dismiss the petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

The court referred to the decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., underscoring that the petitioner failed to present convincing reasons to demonstrate that the impugned order was arbitrary or whimsical.

In conclusion, the High Court's decision to dismiss the petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach in handling bail matters, particularly in emphasizing the importance of safeguarding personal liberty while simultaneously ensuring that justice is served. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases where the cancellation of bail is sought, mandating the presence of substantial and compelling reasons for such actions.

 Date: 01/02/2024

 RAJNISH VS RAKESH @ GOVIND BANWARILAL DHANDHARIYA

 

Similar News