Gujarat High Court High Court

Vasnabhai vs State on 19 September, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Vasnabhai vs State on 19 September, 2008
Author: H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1160320/2008	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11603 of 2008
 

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

VASNABHAI
DHARIYABHAI DAMOR - Applicant
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent
 

==================================================Appearance
: 
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA for the
Applicant. 
MS ML SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent. 
==================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/09/2008 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. RULE.

Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Ms. M. L. Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent-State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
matter is taken up for hearing today.

2. This
is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking regular bail of the petitioner in connection with
FIR bearing C. R. No. I-40 of 2008 filed at Dahod Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.

3. Learned
Advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence
as alleged against him. The learned Advocate submitted that false
case is foisted on the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner
requires to be enlarged on regular bail. The learned Advocate placed
reliance on the FIR at Annexure-A to the petition in support of the
aforesaid contention.

4. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. M. L. Shah representing the
respondent-State submitted that considering the role played by the
petitioner and the manner in which the offences are committed by the
petitioner under Sections 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
the discretionary relief cannot be granted to the petitioner and the
petition deserves to be rejected out of hand.

5. I
have considered the rival submissions and perused the averments made
in the application, the FIR produced at Annexure-A to the petition
and the role attributed to the petitioner is also taken into
consideration by me. On the date of the incident, the victim was 18
years of age and that fact is also reflected in the FIR as well as
the documents at Annexure-C to the petition. The victim subsequently
got married to another person and that fact is also considered by me.
Even the charge-sheet is filed. In view of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in
favour of the petitioner.

6. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR bearing C.R.
No. I-40 of 2008 registered at Dahod Police Station on executing a
bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand Only] with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to the
conditions that he shall:

[a] not
take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;

[b] not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender
his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;

[d] not
leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the
Sessions Court concerned;

[e] mark
his presence at Dahod Police Station on any day of every first week
of English calendar month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM till the trial
is over;

[f] furnish
the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and
also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not
change his residence without prior permission of this Court; and,

[g] maintain
law and order.

7. If
breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions
Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate
action in the matter.

8. Bail
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try
the case.

9. At
the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the
observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage,
made by this Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

10. Rule
is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.

[H.

B. ANTANI, J.]

/shamnath

   

Top