AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 399 wordsHasmukh D. Suthar, J
[1.0] When the matter is called out today, none appeared for the applicant. Even on the earlier dates fixed in the matter, none had remained present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it clearly appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 11.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the application as well as the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the applicant based on available material on record.
[2.0] By way of the present application, the applicant has requested this Court to quash and set aside the order dated 12.10.2013 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application No.723/2013 granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.
[3.0] Having heard the learned APP appearing for the respondent -State of Gujarat and perusing the record as well as averments made in the application, this Court is not inclined to accede to the relief sought for in the present application more particularly in view of the fact that the applicant has sought relief of cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12.10.2013 and since last 13 years, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are on anticipatory bail and no breach of any of the conditions imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail is reported till date, due to efflux of time, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
[4.0] In light of above it appears that the applicant has failed to point out any patent error or perversity in the order passed by the Court below or any miscarriage of justice and therefore no case is made out to interference with the impugned order and the application fails to satisfy the test for exercising revisional jurisdiction in light of the scope of revision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012)9 SCC 460].
[5.0] Accordingly, the present revision application stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.