Justice Anant S Dave in his 21-page judgement said that the Ahmedabad Sessions Court should not have granted bail to the accused when the periodic records of the investigation were being submitted by the investigating agency (CID Crime) to the Supreme Court from time to time, and the investigation was poised at a 'crucial stage'.

The Court said since both police officers were high ranking and had prime facie cases against them, there was every possibility of them using their clout to influence the witnesses in the case.

Justice Dave further said that the Ahmedabad Sessions Court had taken extraneous considerations like '25 FIR's against Sohrabuddin' and the 'meritorious service record of the accused' while granting bail to the two officers.

The High Court had cancelled the bail of both police officers on January 25. Dinesh and Amin were only two of the 13 policemen granted bail by the Ahmedabad District and Sessions Court on October 5, 2007, which the CID Crime had challenged in two separate appeals in the High Court.

In both cases the defence had contended that the statement of police constable Nathuba Pravinsinh Jadeja wherein he had first stated that he had seen Dinesh at the scene of the encounter on November 26, 2005, and later that Amin was present at site where Sohrabuddin's wife Kauserbi's body was disposed off, were unreliable. The defence said that Jadeja had subsequently retracted from his statements and they could not be relied upon.

The High Court, however, held that these questions could be decided during the trial of the case and were not necessary to be taken into consideration at the time of granting bail.

The Bench said that the Ahmedabad Sessions Court had failed to appreciate the basic issue in this case, which was the "nature of allegations levelled against the respondent accused, their involvement in a serious offence and the likelihood of influencing witnesses at the stage of trial, when free and fair investigation was still underway. The fact that statements and witnesses that prima facie establishes the presence of the respondents at the scene of offence was also something not considered by the Ahmedabad Sessions Court, which was wrong.