Case Note & Summary
The Ahmedabad Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. (in liquidation) filed three criminal revision applications under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2, Shah Jayesh Dineshbhai, in connection with FIR C.R.No.04/2009 dated 12.05.2009 registered with CID Crime, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station. The FIR alleged that the accused, including respondent No.2, caused wrongful loss to the bank by cheating and siphoning off public money. The bank contended that respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail based on a statement by co-accused No.4 that he would pay all dues. However, co-accused No.4 failed to pay despite filing undertakings in 2013. The bank had previously approached the Supreme Court, which cancelled the bail of co-accused No.4 and directed him to surrender. The bank argued that the same reasoning should apply to respondent No.2. The State supported the bank's submissions. The respondent No.2 opposed the revision, arguing that there was no misuse of bail and no supervening circumstances. The High Court, after hearing all parties, dismissed the revision applications, holding that cancellation of bail requires misuse of liberty or new adverse facts. The failure of co-accused No.4 to repay does not constitute a supervening circumstance for cancellation of respondent No.2's bail. The court observed that the bank's remedy lies in civil recovery proceedings, not in cancellation of bail. The judgment was delivered on 13.03.2026 by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Cancellation - Supervening Circumstances - Section 439(2) CrPC (Section 483 BNSS) - The court held that cancellation of bail requires misuse of liberty or new adverse facts; mere failure of co-accused to repay dues does not constitute a supervening circumstance for cancellation of bail of another accused. (Paras 1-4) B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Cancellation - Section 438 CrPC (Section 482 BNSS) - The court held that anticipatory bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled solely because another co-accused failed to honour an undertaking to pay the bank; there must be specific allegations of misuse of liberty by the accused himself. (Paras 1-4) C) Banking Law - Fraud - Siphoning of Funds - The Ahmedabad Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd. alleged that accused caused wrongful loss by cheating and siphoning public money; FIR was registered in 2009. The court noted that the bank's remedy lies in civil recovery proceedings, not cancellation of bail. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 (accused) should be cancelled on the ground that co-accused No.4 failed to repay the bank as per undertaking, and whether such failure constitutes a supervening circumstance for cancellation of bail.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three revision applications, refusing to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2.
Law Points
- Bail cancellation requires misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances
- mere failure of co-accused to repay does not justify cancellation
- anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled on grounds not personal to the accused
