Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/14591/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14591 of 2010
=========================================
SHAILESH
@ BAKRO RAGHUNATH MISTRY - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
RAJESH K KANANI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 10/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Present
application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for releasing him on regular bail in
connection with CR No.I-39 of 2010 registered with Kishanwadi Police
Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A),
365, 368, 452, 323, 506(2), 467, 468, 471, 419, 212, 120(B) and 34
of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police
Act.
Heard
Mr.Rajesh Kanani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L.
Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Mr.Kanani
has submitted that false complaint is filed with a view to implicate
the present applicant in the offence. He has also contended that
prima-facie no case is made out against the present applicant. There
are no evidence to connect the present applicant with the alleged
offence. He has also contended that co-accused has been granted bail
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 25th
October 2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.18602
of 2010. Mr.Kanani has also contended that the present applicant is
a young boy and he is very poor person. He has also contended that
in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
this Court vide order dated 29th November 2010 granted
bail to co-accused. He, therefore, prayed to release the applicant
on regular bail.
As
against this, Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has
strongly opposed the present application and contended that the
present application deserves dismissal. He has also contended that
this is a successive bail application.
I
have gone through the order passed by the trial Court as well as
papers produced on record of the case. From the perusal of the
papers it appears that the applicant-accused was identified by the
victim. It also appears from the perusal of the papers that
ingredient of Section 120(B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is established. The applicant had meeting of mind with other
conspirators. I have also perused Section 10 of the Evidence Act.
Ingredient of Section 10 of the Evidence Act is also established on
record. I have also gone through the order passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. There seems to be nothing on record against
the applicant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. I have not
found any substance in the present application. Hence, present
application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule
is discharged .
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top