The Gujarat High Court has held that criminal revision applications challenging the cancellation of bail are not maintainable in law, reiterating that orders granting, refusing, or cancelling bail are interlocutory in nature.
The bench of Justice P. M. Raval has observed that the orders granting, rejecting and cancelling the bail are interlocutory orders against which, revision cannot lie as there is no finality to such orders for an application for bail can always be renewed from time to time.
The batch of revision applications filed by multiple accused, including Rajeshbhai Mahadevbhai Taylor, in connection with an alleged large-scale misappropriation of government funds under the MGNREGA scheme.
The case stems from allegations that contractors and public officials colluded to execute rural road construction works in violation of prescribed Standard Operating Procedures under the MGNREGA scheme. The prosecution alleged generation of false bills and siphoning of public money, causing substantial loss to the State exchequer across several villages in Bharuch district. FIRs were registered under serious provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
Initially, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, granted bail to the accused. However, the State moved the Sessions Court seeking cancellation of bail, contending that the orders were passed mechanically despite the gravity of the offences and the scale of the alleged scam. Accepting the State’s plea, the Sessions Court cancelled the bail, prompting the accused to approach the High Court through criminal revision applications under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Before the High Court, the accused argued that cancellation of bail could only be justified on the basis of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty or tampering with evidence, which were absent in the present case. They also contended that the Sessions Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively setting aside the Magistrate’s bail orders and relied on several Supreme Court judgments distinguishing between cancellation of bail and appellate interference with an unjustified bail order.
The State opposed the revisions, asserting that the alleged offence involved massive misappropriation of public funds, that investigation was still ongoing with further revelations expected, and that the Magistrate’s bail orders were non-speaking and legally flawed. It was further argued that revisional jurisdiction is limited and could not be invoked to re-examine discretionary bail orders.
The court after examining the legal position, declined to enter into the merits of the bail cancellation. Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents, including Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that bail-related orders are interlocutory and, therefore, expressly barred from revisional scrutiny. The Court observed that such orders lack finality, as bail applications can always be renewed or reconsidered based on changed circumstances.
The High Court dismissed all the revision applications as not maintainable, while clarifying that the applicants were free to pursue any other remedy available under law. The Court also granted the accused additional time to surrender, noting that the dismissal was purely on procedural grounds and not on the merits of the allegations.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajeshbhai Mahadevbhai Taylor Versus State Of Gujarat
Case No.: R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 2495 of 2025
Date: 27/01/2026
Read More: How To Invest In Copper From India In 2026?
