Gujarat High Court High Court

Haji vs State on 29 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Haji vs State on 29 July, 2010
Author: H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8331/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8331 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3189 of 2010
 

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

 

HAJI
AYUB KEVAR - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SIKANDER SAIYED for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR DIVYESH SEJPAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/07/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Rule.

Mr. Divyesh Sejpal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of rule.

Heard
learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor at length and in great detail.

By
filing this application, the applicant has prayed to modify
conditions imposed in order dated 11.05.2010 passed in the main
matter, granting bail to the applicant.

Order
dated 11.05.2010 was passed after hearing learned advocate for the
applicant at length. The applicant himself volunteered to deposit
1/3rd amount and the remaining amount within one month of
his release on bail and the same are categorically mentioned in the
order dated 11.05.2010. The order also states that in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case the order is passed without
making it as a precedent. Conditions were imposed by this Court
considering the gravity and nature of the offence.

Having
heard the learned advocates appearing in the matter, this Court is of
the opinion that the conditions imposed in order dated 11.05.2010
needs no interference, more particularly so since the applicant
himself volunteered and therefore the order was passed. This
application requires to be rejected, and is accordingly rejected.

Rule
is discharged.

mathew					[
H.B. ANTANI, J.]
 

 
 


 


 



    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top