Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 939 (GUJ)

Sajid Abdulrehman Panja v. State of Gujarat

2018-08-01

SONIA GOKANI

body2018
JUDGMENT SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. This application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by the original-complainant for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval vide order dated 02.05.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No.121 of 2018. 2. The applicant is the original complainant who is residing at village Veraval, District Gir Somnath. It is his case in the FIR dated 27.04.2018 lodged with the Sutrapada Police Station, District Gir Somnath being IC.R.No.24 of 2018 for the offences registered under Sections 395, 397, 341, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. That he with his friend had gone to his farm located near village Javantri, Bamnasa of Talala Gir Taluka on 26.04.2018. While they were returning from the farm in the night, the applicant found one white coloured hyundai i20 car bearing Registration No.GJ-32-B-5454 on the side of the road. When he tried to find out as to who the persons were, there were three persons inside the car and they asked him to go away. When he moved ahead in his car, they intercepted his car. His request to remove the vehicle from the road fell on the deaf ears. The heated exchange of words took place at that stage and both the vehicles went ahead. However, the applicant was scared of the occupants of the hyundai i20 car and therefore, he changed his route to avoid any further disputes. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 by then had gathered about 11 to 12 persons who obstructed the vehicle of the applicant at village Ghantiya Pranchi and started beating the applicant with the iron wheel-wrench, iron pipe and baseball bat. The three persons were seriously injured and needed to be hospitalized. One of his friends, Shri Yusufbhai Husainbhai Kapadiya sustained injury on his nose and eyes and Shri Hanifbhai Vora also sustained injuries on his left eye and Shri Farukhusain received 10 stitches on his head and injuries on the wrist. 3. The applicant-original complainant therefore, lodged an FIR with the Rudrapada Police Station at 00:30 hours 27.04. 2018 itself. It is the case of the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge, Veraval in an anticipatory bail moved by the accused- respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Criminal Misc. 3. The applicant-original complainant therefore, lodged an FIR with the Rudrapada Police Station at 00:30 hours 27.04. 2018 itself. It is the case of the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge, Veraval in an anticipatory bail moved by the accused- respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Criminal Misc. Application No.121 of 2018 allowed the same which has aggrieved the present complainant who is before this Court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. 4. This Court had issued Rule on 10.05.2018 when the respondents appeared and sought time. At the time of hearing, this Court on 25.07.2018 noticed that serious injuries were sustained by one of the victims, namely, Shri Yusuf Kapadiya, injury certificate was also produced by the Investigating Officer and there was further treatment that was needed to be taken according to the Investigating Officer from Retina Foundation, Ashopalav Hospital under Dr.Naagpal. 5. This Court has heard the learned advocate, Mr.Laxmansinh Zala who appears for the original complainant and has fervently urged that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval has completely overlooked the glaring facts in the instant case where three persons were gravely injured and were hospitalized. The kind of weapons which were used and the amount of damage that has been also caused to the vehicle and terror that had been created due to the indiscriminate blows of baseball bat and iron pipe on the persons as well as on the vehicle, it is hardly the case of either concoction or exaggerated version deserving any discretionary relief in favour of the respondents-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail. 5.1 He has further urged that the respondent No.3 has four criminal antecedents against him for committing similar kind of offences and yet, the Trial Court has chosen to exercise discretionary powers in his favour. He has urged that on completely irrelevant and erroneous consideration that the Trial Court has allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The request is also further made that the Trial Court while considering the anticipatory bail cannot overlook the medical report, treatment and grievous injuries to the victims and all other circumstances including the fact that there was no instigation nor was there any past enmity between the parties. He, therefore, has urged this Court to cancel the anticipatory bail of both these respondents-accused and allow this application. He, therefore, has urged this Court to cancel the anticipatory bail of both these respondents-accused and allow this application. It is also urged that inspired by the order in favour of those who were the kingpins in the entire incident, the others have also moved an application for anticipatory bail seeking parity. This would also mean that the investigation cannot proceed without the accused causing any hindrances. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Maithili Mehta appearing for the State has also fully supported the version of the complainant. It is urged by her that the Court ought not to have granted anticipatory bail in favour of these persons who are involved in serious offences not only of causing injuries with the lethal weapons, but also of, thereafter looting the cash amount kept in the car and damaging the vehicle irreparably. She has urged that grant of anticipatory bail in the matter like this and that too, to the person who has criminal antecedents, would also send completely wrong message in the society and, therefore, also the Court needs to consider the request of the complainant. She has submitted argued that in the hands of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 there were an iron wheel-wrench and baseball bat. Moreover, as per the details obtained by the Investigating Officer, the CDRs were obtained from the service provider company and location of the respondents also is proving their presence at the scene of offence prima facie. She has also urged that some of the accused are yet absconding. 7. This Court has heard learned advocate, Mr.Rohit Verma appearing with learned advocate, Mr.Kaivan Patel and learned advocate, Mr.Nanavati who has strenuously urged before this Court that much water has flown and this Court has also granted regular bail to one of the co-accused. Moreover, there is no untoward incident noticed after once the anticipatory bail has been granted to the respondents-accused. It is further his say that the consideration and parameters which should weigh with the Court for cancellation of bail are completely different than those which would operate while granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused. It is further argued by the learned advocate, Mr.Rohit Verma that the injuries caused to the victims are not grave and when the investigation has already progressed, the respondents-accused have cooperated the Investigating Officer. It is further argued by the learned advocate, Mr.Rohit Verma that the injuries caused to the victims are not grave and when the investigation has already progressed, the respondents-accused have cooperated the Investigating Officer. Moreover, the release of applicants was on very stringent conditions and therefore also, at this stage, the Court need not entertain this application. It is further his say that the incident has not happened the way it has been described and it is only after the instigation on the part of the first informant that the same has resulted into negligible scuffle, mountain is made out of the mole by the complainant and hence, no purpose is going to be served particularly when the Trial Court has already rightly exercised its discretion of grant of regular bail in favour of one of the co-accused. 8. Having thus heard learned advocates on both the sides and also on noticing that the contents of FIR and papers of investigation, it is prima facie emerging on record that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the persons who in their hands had iron wheel-wrench and baseball bat at the time when the incident had taken place. It is also apparent from the record that there is absence of any theory of instigation nor is there any defence of any old enmity. The incident had started when the respondent Nos.2 and 3 the occupants of i20 hyundai car were annoyed with conduct of the present applicant who was curious to know of presence of a car at a late night and after asking him to go away, they had taken ill of this and intercepted the vehicle of complainant. Out of fear that these respondents may further aggravate the dispute, the applicant-complainant had changed his way and yet they both have managed to call their friends and about 11 persons got together on the highway (near Ghantia Crossing) which is the place of incident to create ruckus and causing havoc by giving indiscriminate blow with the weapons that they had in their hands and also with other weapons which were carried by the other persons. Those who were called by these two were also armed with weapons. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 has got four criminal antecedents all concerning human body being II-C.R.No.80 of 2010, I-C.R.No.40 of 2012, II-C.R.No.5 of 2014 and I-18 of 2015. Those who were called by these two were also armed with weapons. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 has got four criminal antecedents all concerning human body being II-C.R.No.80 of 2010, I-C.R.No.40 of 2012, II-C.R.No.5 of 2014 and I-18 of 2015. The Investigating Officer when was asked to file his affidavit before the Trial Court at the time of considering their anticipatory bail, had also stated that their presence is prima facie made out from the CDRs which had been collected. 10. It appears that the Trial Court after quoting Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had noticed that the respondent No.2 himself was getting married on May 08, 2018 and he belonged to the business community of Aajotha village, Taluka Veraval and respondent No.3 also the resident of the Ghantiya Pranti, Taluka Sutrapada with his movable and immovable properties at that place. The Trial Court has reasoned it this way that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with the anticipatory bail has held that the life, liberty and property need to be respected and that is not only the policy of the State, but, the requirement of the civilized society and right to live is a basic human right which nobody can violate. It further held that the role of the accused, whether they were convicted earlier or not and whether there are possibility of their indulging in the similar offences or not need to be regarded by the Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail and has chosen to rely on the decision of reported in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 and the decision of the reported in Rakesh Baban Borhade vs State of Maharashtra, (2014) 8 Supreme 65 . 11. In the opinion of this Court the order of anticipatory bail is based on quoting correct law, applying to the wrong facts and hence could be termed as based on totally irrelevant considerations. There is virtually complete absence of any reason. 11. In the opinion of this Court the order of anticipatory bail is based on quoting correct law, applying to the wrong facts and hence could be termed as based on totally irrelevant considerations. There is virtually complete absence of any reason. It is not only the conduct of the accused in the post grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail which can weigh with the Court in considering the plea of cancellation of bail but the wrong, faulty or irrelevant consideration of findings and absence of consideration of relevant materials also could be the reason for the Court to consider such a request for cancellation of bail. 12. It is quite apparent from the reading of the papers that there is a prima facie involvement of both the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is also prima facie emerging on record that they were having the weapons in their hands which were capable of taking toll of human lives and they have used them right at the place of offence and that fact is also emerging on record. The injuries sustained by three persons who were needed to be taken to Aaditya Birla Hospital and other Hospital and the affidavit of Shri Yusuf Kapadiya-one of the victims is also placed on record which is indicative that he has lost his 90% visibility of the right side of his eye and since his treatment could not be done at Junagadh he has now started taking his treatment at Retina Foundation and Aashopalav Eye Hospital, Ahmedabad. 13. This Court notices that the Retina Foundation and Aashopalav Eye Hospital treating by Dr.Naagpaal has given diagnosis of the victim, full thickness of mascular hole. This certificate of course has not satisfied the percentage of disability and it also had said the complete rest to be given for the period of four weeks. There are certain advise by the treating and consulting doctors which are not forming the part of this discharge summary. However, the fact remains that there is a serious right eye injury to the victim. The injuries to the other persons are quite apparent and therefore it is not a concocted case against the respondents-accused or for that matter against any persons. 14. However, the fact remains that there is a serious right eye injury to the victim. The injuries to the other persons are quite apparent and therefore it is not a concocted case against the respondents-accused or for that matter against any persons. 14. In that view of the matter to apply the parameters of anticipatory bail which is the power to be exercised with all cautions and care bearing in mind all the surrounding circumstances which also would include the nature of crime committed, the kind of weapon used, the amount of injuries caused, the reason for commission of the crime, the damage to the properties and in the surrounding, the fear and the terror that the incident has caused, etc. before the Court chooses to give grant of anticipatory bail. 15. At this stage, it would also be apt to reproduce the relevant paragraph from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre where the Court has summarized the principle of grant of anticipatory bail: "111.No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be 64 caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." The case of the respondents-accused does not fall under any of these parameters. It is also required to note that the respondent No.2 has got four other offences touching the human body and these aspects had been brought to the notice of the Trial Court. It can be well appreciated that the incident is not in the realm of question mark or over implication and it is not the case of defence where its happening itself is doubtful or this complaint is made to humiliate the respondents. It can be well appreciated that the incident is not in the realm of question mark or over implication and it is not the case of defence where its happening itself is doubtful or this complaint is made to humiliate the respondents. With the kind of antecedent the respondent No.3 has, the possibilities of his hampering the smooth investigation also could not have been ruled out by the Court concerned. 16. Apt would be to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of ANIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & Another., (2018) 12 SCC 129 . The relevant observations, read thus: "18. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are:- (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. 19. While considering the basic requirements for grant of bail, in State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 , this Court has held as under:- "18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118 ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge." 17. Being conscious of the right to life and liberty and being also conscious of the more and more emphasis on a personal liberty at the pre-trial level, the Court cannot be oblivious of the nature and gravity of the accusation and role of the accused so also the larger societal interest and also prejudice to the free and fair investigation and apprehension of hampering of the witnesses at the time of considering the application for anticipatory bail. It would be a sad day for the society that the judiciary being oblivion of the broad well laid down principles would on the contrary embolden such elements by grant of anticipatory bail and thereby would fail to serve the larger cause of safeguarding the society. It would be a sad day for the society that the judiciary being oblivion of the broad well laid down principles would on the contrary embolden such elements by grant of anticipatory bail and thereby would fail to serve the larger cause of safeguarding the society. The Apex Court in case of Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 613 while considering this very issue has held thus: "18.Recently, in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh this Court while dealing with individual liberty and cry of the society for justice has opined as under: "18.It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires." 18. Some of the decisions which have beckoned the path of all those who are discharging their duties and are required to consider the request of cancellation of bail would deserve to be reproduced at this stage. In the decision of the Anil Kumar Yadav, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that what is the duty of the Court while considering the question of granting bail. Para-32 of the said judgment reads as under: "It was repeatedly urged that the High Court misdirected itself in interfering with the discretionary order of the Sessions Court granting bail to the accused and there was absolutely nothing to show that the appellants are likely to abuse the bail or tamper with evidence. The Court while granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner. Of course, once discretion is exercised by the Sessions Court to grant bail on consideration of relevant materials, the High Court would not normally interfere with such discretion, unless the same suffers from serious infirmities or perversity. The Court while granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner. Of course, once discretion is exercised by the Sessions Court to grant bail on consideration of relevant materials, the High Court would not normally interfere with such discretion, unless the same suffers from serious infirmities or perversity. While considering the correctness of the order granting bail, the approach should be whether the order granting bail to the accused is vitiated by any serious infirmity, in which case, the High Court can certainly interfere with the exercise of discretion. The material available on record prima facie indicating the involvement of the accused, possibility of accused tampering with witnesses and the gravity of the crime were not kept in view by the Sessions Court. Since the Sessions Court granted bail to the appellants on irrelevant considerations and the same suffered from serious infirmity, the High Court rightly set aside the order of grant of bail to the accused. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference." The Apex Court while considering this recent decision of Virupakshappa Gouda and another v. State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 has laid down the parameters for granting of bail. Paras-14 to 19 of the said judgment reads as under: "14.Be it noted, though the aforesaid passages have their relevance but the same cannot be made applicable in each and every case for grant of bail. In the said case, the accused-appellant was facing trial for the offences under Sections 420-B, 468, 471 and 109 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thus, the factual matrix was quite different. That apart, it depends upon the nature of the crime and the manner in which it is committed. A bail application is not to be entertained on the basis of certain observations made in a different context. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of the factual score and understanding of the pronouncements in the field. 15. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. and another[3]. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of the factual score and understanding of the pronouncements in the field. 15. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. and another[3]. The requisite factors are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another[4], it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors. We may usefully reproduce the said passage:- "9....among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed the offence. (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 16. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, the Court had reiterated the principle by observing thus:- "34.While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 17.From the aforesaid principles, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. In this context, we may, with profit, reproduce a passage from Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another[6], wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed: "16.The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law." 18. In this context what has been stated by a three-Judge bench in Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat is quite instructive. In the said case, the Court has held that where the Court admits the accused to bail by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and keeping out of consideration the relevant materials the order becomes vulnerable and such vulnerability warrants annulment of the order. 19. In the instant case, as is demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has not been guided by the established parameters for grant of bail. He has not kept himself alive to the fact that twice the bail applications had been rejected and the matter had travelled to this Court. Once this Court has declined to enlarge the appellants on bail, endevours to project same factual score should not have been allowed. It is absolute impropriety and that impropriety call for axing of the order." 19. With the above principles, this Court is of the opinion that not only the absence of any untoward incident in the post anticipatory bail period which could be the factor to be regarded, it is the grant of anticipatory bail when is found to be on irrelevant consideration and in complete absence of any reason, this Court, deserves to interfere. The marriage of the applicant No.1 could hardly be the ground for anticipatory bail, if he is otherwise found to be prima facie involved in a serious crime. The marriage of the applicant No.1 could hardly be the ground for anticipatory bail, if he is otherwise found to be prima facie involved in a serious crime. It is also not to be forgotten that such grant also paves the way for others who would be always seeking the same on the basis of principle of parity which exactly has happened in the instant case. 20. So far as the two of the accused are concerned, who have been granted regular bail by this Court were those persons who were otherwise not named in the FIR and were known to be unknown persons. They were young students, one of them was pursuing M.B.A. and their young age with study and their absence of names in the FIR as well as the roles mentioned therein had weighed with this Court in granting them the regular bail. Merely because some of the accused are granted regular bail also cannot be the ground for this Court to disregard the plea of cancellation of bail rendered on unsustainable premises. 21. The Court has not only disregarded the nature and gravity of accusation and the roles attributed to the accused in the story of prosecution, but also, the antecedents of one of the respondents and also the greater possibly of the accused likely to repeat the similar such offence. It is also quite clear as can be made out from the material on record that the accusation have not been made with a view to cause injury or for humiliating the respondents. The impact of grant of the anticipatory bail also has been disregarded. If one strikes a balance between two factors of the right to personal liberty and the free and fair investigation the balance surely would tilts not in favour of the respondents. 22. For the foregoing reasons, present application is allowed. The anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval vide order dated 02.05.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No.121 of 2018 to both the respondents-accused is hereby cancelled. They shall surrender themselves before the Trial Court in no case later than August 06, 2018. 23. With the above, present application stands disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted. 24. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Court concerned and also to the learned advocates on both the sides at the earlier. 25. They shall surrender themselves before the Trial Court in no case later than August 06, 2018. 23. With the above, present application stands disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted. 24. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Court concerned and also to the learned advocates on both the sides at the earlier. 25. Observations made by this Court shall not come in the way of the respondents-accused in pursuing other alternative remedies available to them under the law.