Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2958/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2958 of 2010
=========================================================
SANJAY
HARIRAM AGRAWAL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
M/S
THAKKAR ASSOC. for
Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr Kartik Pandya, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 09/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
being a successive bail application preferred by the petitioner with
contention that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, the
petitioner is in jail since last six years or so and all other
accused are on bail and, therefore, the present petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
2. This
court, (Coram: Anant S Dave, J.) by order dated 23.3.2009 while
rejecting the application for temporary bail, in para 6, observed as
under:
“6.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on
going through the record of the case, what transpires is that regular
bail sought for by the applicant was already rejected by order dated
28.9.2004 but after taking into consideration the willingness on the
part of the applicant at the relevant point of time to discharge the
liability of the complainant-bank and in view of the fact that the
trial is likely to take time, temporary bail was granted to the
applicant, which was finally extended from 29.3.2008 to 30.03.2009.
During the period of temporary bail, when the applicant came to be
released first time on 6.1.2007, after period of five months, on
14.6.2007 the efforts made by the applicant also failed. For the
allegations levelled against the applicant in the capacity of
Chairman of Home Trade Corporation etc., attracting ingredients of
offences punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with
section 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment, if
convicted, may extend upto life imprisonment. The nature of
allegations and role attributed qua the applicant in commission of
offence, prima facie reveal about the systematic fraud misleading
gullible investors to invest in government securities including Banks
for which offences are registered of serious nature and punishment is
upto life imprisonment. Details discussion or reasoning on that
aspect at this state is not necessary.”
At
that time also the petitioner was under-trial prisoner for about 51
months and considering the well reasoned submissions of the learned
Advocates for the applicant, this court had rejected the petition
against which Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Supreme
Court being Criminal Misc.Petition No.14610 to 14612 of 2009 which
came to be withdrawn by order dated 1.9.2009.
3. Having
heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the
record, in my opinion, there is no change of circumstances or law to
consider this application and release the petitioner on bail except
the fact that this application has been preferred 10 months after
the earlier order has been passed.
No
case is made out. This Application is dismissed.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
msp
Top