Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1877/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1877 of 2010
===================================
PRIYANK
@ TINNO PAPPU MAHENDRA PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
===================================
Appearance
:
MR PP MAJMUDAR for Applicant(s)
: 1,
MS TK PATEL ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
===================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 18/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
is an application preferred under section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant who has been arrested in
connection with I-C.R.No.142 of 2009 registered at Sola High Court
Police Station, Dist.Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under
sections 364A, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The
learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for the applicant submitted that
applicant is an innocent person and he has been committed an offence
as alleged in the complaint. He is arrested only on the basis of the
surmises and conjunctures and he has not played any direct role in
the commission of alleged offence. Learned advocate submitted that
even the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out
against the applicant. Thus, considering the role attributed to the
applicant, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned
APP Ms.T K Patel representing State while opposing the bail
application submitted that applicant is involved in a serious
offence punishable under sections 364A, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of
Indian Penal Code. Considering the role attributed to the applicant,
he along with other accused kidnapped minor child and brutally
murdered him. Considering the manner in which offence is committed
by the applicant along with other co accused and the gravity of of
offence in which the applicant is involved, no discretionary relief
be granted and the application deserves to be dismissed.
I
have heard learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for the applicant and
Ms.T.K.Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
State at length and in great detail.
I
have considered the rival submissions canvassed by learned counsel
of both the sides. The applicant is facing the charge for the
offence punishable under sections 364A, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of
Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, the accused had gone
to the house of the informant on 14.01.2009 and they kidnapped him
with a view to extort money from the informant. After kidnapping the
minor child under the guise of showing him a movie, the original
accused no.1 strangulated the minor child and the applicant gagged
the mouth of the victim. Considering the role attributed to the
applicant which is reflected in the First Information Report as well
as police papers, which are produced for my perusal, as well as
statements of witnesses etc., the P.M. Note as well as the fact that
applicant is also identified in the Identification Parade, I am of
the view that as the involvement of the applicant is made out from
the complaint as well as police papers which are produced for my
perusal, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicant.
For
the foregoing reasons, there is no merits in the application and it
is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Direct Service is permitted.
(H.B.ANTANI,
J.)
Amit/-
Top