Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9144/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No.9144 of 2011
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
BHARAT
AMRUTLAL MAHAJAN & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance:
MS
CM SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Applicant(s): 1,
None
for Respondent(s): 1 - 2.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date
: 06/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
this application under section 439(2) read with section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – State of
Gujarat has challenged the order dated 25th April, 2011
passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar
whereby he had enlarged the respondent accused on bail in relation to
the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 464, 465, 468,
471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Ms.
C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant has
assailed the impugned order by submitting that the respondent herein
is the main accused in the matter and that the learned Judge without
considering the gravity of the offence has erred in granting bail in
favour of the respondent. It is submitted that in the circumstances,
the impugned order granting bail is required to be set aside and the
bail granted to the respondent is required to be cancelled.
3. A
perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge indicates that the learned Judge has applied his mind
to all the relevant factors and has found that the respondent accused
is not a hardened criminal. Considering the record of the case, the
learned Judge has found that the documents have been recovered by the
police during the course of investigation and that the FIR is based
mainly on documentary evidence and as such, there is no possibility
of tampering with the evidence. The learned Judge has further
considered the nature of the offence and has, after considering the
relevant decisions in this regard, found that this is a fit case for
grant of bail.
4. Having
perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the
learned Judge vide the impugned order, has enlarged the respondent on
bail after taking into consideration all relevant parameters in this
regard. There being no infirmity in the impugned order, there is no
warrant for any intervention by this Court.
5. The
application is accordingly rejected.
(
Harsha Devani, J. )
hki
Top