Gujarat High Court High Court

Dilip vs State on 30 March, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Dilip vs State on 30 March, 2011
Author: J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/2515/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2515 of 2011
 

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


 

DILIP
@ DILO KHIMJIBHAI @ KARABHAI DODIYA KARADIA & 2 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
PM THAKKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR M/S THAKKAR ASSOC.
for Applicant(s) : 1 -
3. 
MS CM SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
ND NANAVATI, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

Date
: 30/03/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

When
the matter came up for hearing, Ms.C.M.Shah, ld.APP for the
respondent – State, upon instructions by the concerned
Investigating Officer, states that the case was already committed to
the concerned Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has posted the
Sessions Case No.54 of 2010 for framing charge on 6.4.2011.

Upon
such statement having been made by Ms.Shah, ld.APP for the
respondent – State, Mr.P.M.Thakkar, ld.Sr.Counsel for
M/s.Thakkar Associates for the petitioners, states that the bail
application at this stage is not pressed reserving the liberty of
the petitioners to move for bail in future and the concerned
Sessions Court may be directed to expedite the hearing of the
Sessions Case, since the petitioners are in jail since June 2010.

In
above view of the matter, the bail application is permitted to be
withdrawn at this stage, reserving the liberty of the petitioners to
move for bail in future, if necessity so arises. The concerned
Sessions Court is requested to see that the Sessions Case No.54 of
2010 is tried and decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within 5 months from the date of receipt of this order. The bail
application accordingly stands disposed of.

Rule
is accordingly discharged.

(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)

(binoy)

   

Top