Gujarat High Court High Court

Dinesh vs State on 14 October, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Dinesh vs State on 14 October, 2010
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/11657/2010	 4/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11657 of 2010
 

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

 

DINESH
NATHA KOTIA & 2 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR BB NAIK,R SR. ADVOCATE,
 for MR
PS CHAMPANERI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. 
Ms. MINI NAIR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR HARSHIT S TOLIA for Complainant
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/10/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

The
present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of
regular bail under sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The
applicants-accused are charged with having committed offences under
sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 of IPC and sec. 135 of
Bombay Police Act for which FIR, being C.R. No. I-72/2010 has been
registered with Veraval Police Station.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel
Mr. Naik appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants
are the original accused shown in the FIR as accused Nos. 4, 8 &
9 and they are not attributed with any injury or hurt and therefore
the present application may be allowed. He further submitted that
sec. 326 would not be attracted. He also submitted that the victim
was taken to the government hospital and thereafter, as admittedly
stated in the impugned order, he has got himself admitted in the
private hospital and the injuries are not serious and therefore the
present application may be allowed.

4. Learned APP Ms. Nair
resisted the application. She however stated that the applicants are
not attributed with any injury to anyone.

5. Learned
counsel Mr.Tolia objected, referring to the papers, and submitted
that they are headstrong persons. He submitted that the injury
certificate of the medical officer of the local hospital is required
to be considered that it cannot be said to be non-grievous injury
when admittedly there is an injury with a sharp cutting weapon as
recorded. He submitted that there are antecedents and as many as 16
cases are registered against the entire gang and therefore the
present application may not be entertained.

6. In
view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether
the present application can be entertained or not.

7. It
is well accepted that the court is not required to appreciate or
scrutinize the evidence in detail. However, for considering the
application for bail, factors like the nature/gravity of offence, the
manner in which it is alleged to have been committed, the role
attributed, weapon used etc. are relevant. In the facts of the
present case, the applicants are not attributed with any injury to
anyone and therefore without any further elaboration, the court is of
the opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed.
However, considering the strong apprehension voiced by learned
counsel Mr. Tolia for the complainant, with the antecedents, it would
be appropriate to apply strict conditions.

8. The application is
accordingly allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on
bail in connection with C.R. No. I-72/2010 registered with Veraval
Police Station, on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the lower court and subject to the
further conditions that they shall :

(a) not take undue
advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty.

(b) not to try to tamper
or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner;

(c ) not act in any
manner injurious to the interests of the prosecution.

(d) maintain law and
order and should co-operate with the investigating officers;

(e) mark their presence
before the concerned Police Station on the first Monday of every
calendar month between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm till the charge sheet is
filed.

(f) furnish the address
of their residence to the investigating officer and also to the court
at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his
residence without prior permission of the court.

(g) surrender their
passport, if any, to the lower court, within a week.

(h) not enter the areas
of Veraval Town for six months.

9. If breach of any of
the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge will
be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

10. Bail before the
lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open to
the trial court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency
certificate, if prayed for.

Rule is made absolute.

D.S. permitted.

(Rajesh H.

Shukla, J.)

(hn)

   

Top