Gujarat High Court High Court

Rakesh vs State on 17 October, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Rakesh vs State on 17 October, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/14731/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14731 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

RAKESH
S/O RAMESH ODEDARA (SOLANKI) - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS
SUBHADRA G PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MS CHETNA SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/10/2011  
 
ORAL ORDER

1. Rule.

Learned APP Ms. C. M. Shah waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of respondent-State.

2. Present
application is filed by the applicant-original accused with a prayer
to modify the order dated 22/9/2001 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch in Criminal Misc. Application No.426
of 2011 by directing the applicant to furnish surety of Rs.10,000/-
from any place.

3. In
the case of the applicant-accused the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch has imposed the condition that surety should
be from the local area of the concerned place.

4. Learned
advocate Ms. Subhadra Patel appearing for the applicant has contended
that it is the right of the applicant to produce surety from all over
India and learned Judge cannot impose such condition of surety that
the same should be of local area.

5. Heard
both the parties and perused the documents on record. I have also
considered decision of learned Judge. The observation made by the
learned Judge to give surety of local area is not proper. The
learned Judge has to consider and peruse the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in which Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the Court
cannot direct to give surety from local area.

6. In
view of above, the applicant is permitted to move before the learned
Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to consider the case of the
applicant and permit the applicant to give surety from any place.
This application is disposed of with the above observation and
direction. Rule is discharged. Direct service is permitted.

(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)

kks

   

Top