Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/135/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 135 of
2010
=================================================
UJMABEN
W/O VANJIBHAI VADAJIYA VASAVA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KANTILAL A KAYASTH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MS ML SHAH, APP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 02/02/2010
ORAL ORDER
1. Leave
to amend. The amendment shall be carried out during the course of the
day.
2. This
application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by the applicant who came to be arrested in connection with
FIR registered as CR No. I 26 of 2009 registered with Mangrol
Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201,
34, 504, 506(2), 323, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well
as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and by consent of both the sides, this
application is taken up for hearing today.
3. Learned
advocate Mr Kantilal A Kayasth for the applicant has submitted that
the applicant is an innocent person and she has been falsely
implicated in commission of the alleged offence. On bare perusal of
the FIR at Annexure-A to the petition, it appears that she had not
played any overt act in the commission of the alleged offence. She
merely instigated the other accused persons to commit an offence.
Considering the aforesaid aspect, she be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms ML Shah for the State, while
opposing the bail application submitted that the applicant is facing
charge under Sections 302, 201, 34, 504, 506(2), 323, 120(B) and 114
of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police
Act. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of
the offence in which the applicant is involved, no discretionary
relief be granted to the applicant and the application deserves to be
rejected.
5. I
have heard learned advocate Mr Kantilal A Kayasth for the applicant
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms ML Shah for the State at
length and in great detail. I have also considered the role
attributed to the applicant which is reflected in the FIR at
Annexure-A to the petition. The applicant merely instigated the other
accused persons to commit an offence, save and except the instigation
by the applicant, no overt act was played by the applicant. In view
of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the role
attributed to the applicant, police papers and quantum of punishment,
etc., I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on
regular bail.
6. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed
and the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection
with CR No. I 26 of 2009 registered with Mangrol Police Station on
executing a bond of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees twenty thousand only] with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
and subject to the conditions that she shall:
[a] not
take undue advantage of her liberty or abuse her liberty;
[b] not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender
her 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] furnish
the present address of her residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change her
residence without prior permission of this Court;
[f] 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 applicant on bail.
10. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct
Service is permitted.
[H.B.
Antani, J.]
mrpandya
Top