Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9817/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9817 of 2011
=========================================
MARUF
AHMED @ VAKIL SAFDAR ALIKHAN PATHAN - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 04/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to release him on
regular bail in connection with CR No.I-0068 of 2009 registered with
Modasa Town Police Station.
Heard
Mr.Ashish M. Dagli, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L.
Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent-State.
It
is contended by Mr.Dagli that the co-accused has already been
released on bail by this Court and looking to the similar role
played by the present applicant, the applicant may be released on
bail. He has also contended that it is true that the applicant is
outsider, but that cannot be the ground to refuse the bail. He has
further contended that the applicant is ready to abide by any
stringent condition imposed by this Court.
He has also contended that the applicant is earning member of his
family. Mr.Dagli has also contended that originally the applicant
was convicted for three years and thereafter, the learned JMFC,
Modasa, for the reason best known to him, forwarded the case of the
applicant to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under
Section 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has convicted the applicant for
five years. It is also contended by Mr.Dagli that the applicant is
in jail since last about two years. He, therefore, contended that
looking to the overall aspect of the matter, the applicant may be
released on bail.
As
against this, Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the present application and contended that
applicant is involved in a serious case. He has contended that the
applicant is a practicing advocate. The applicant has by fraud
stolen as many as 13 vehicles and by forging the documents with the
help of other accused persons, got transferred the said vehicles
either in his name or in the name of his relatives. He has also
contended that the cost of the stolen vehicles comes to around
Rs.1,27,00,000/-. Mr.Jani has also contended that this is a case of
forgery and criminal conspiracy. He has also contended that there
are chances that applicant may jump the bail and he will not be
available during the trial. He has also contended that the role of
the co-accused, who is released on bail by this Court, and present
applicant is not similar. Therefore, parity ground
cannot be considered to release the applicant on bail. Mr.Jani has
also contended that this is a successive bail application. He,
therefore, contended that looking to the role played by the
applicant and looking to the seriousness of the case, present
applicant is required to be rejected.
Heard learned
counsel for the respective parties and also perused the papers
produced before me. It appears from the papers that the role of the
present applicant and the co-accused, who has been released on bail
by this Court, is not similar. The applicant has committed serious
offence of theft. The applicant is involved in theft of 13 vehicles
and by forging the documents and by changing the engine number and
chasis number, transferred the vehicle in his name or in the name of
his relatives. The amount involved in the case is about
Rs.1,27,00,000/-. The applicant is in the noble profession of
advocacy and is misusing his profession. Looking to the gravity of
offence and role of the applicant, I am of the opinion that learned
Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the bail application
of the applicant. I have not found any substance in the present
application. The application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top