Gujarat High Court High Court

Jahid vs The on 11 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Jahid vs The on 11 February, 2011
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1852/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1852 of 2011
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1292 of 2004
 

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

 

JAHID
YUNISH MOHMEED SHAFI MUSLIMAN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR.
ASIM PANDYA, for HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR.
DABHI, APP, for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 11/02/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)

1. Rule.

Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, appears and waives service of rule on behalf
of the respondent State of Gujarat.

2. Having
regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for
hearing today.

3. By
filing instant application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the applicant-convict prisoner, who, by judgement and
order dated 30.9.2003 rendered in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2002 by
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at
Deesa, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life,
has prayed for suspension of sentence and to enlarge him on bail
during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal
Appeal.

4. At
the time of hearing of this application, Mr. Asim Pandya, learned
advocate for H.L. Patel, Advocates for the applicant states that in
view of the latest information received by him, on the date of the
incident the applicant was juvenile. Therefore, he wants to file
separate application seeking prayer to determine juvenility of the
applicant. He, therefore, does not press this application and seeks
leave to withdraw the same.

5. Mr.

Dabhi, learned APP, has no objection if leave as prayed for is
granted.

6. Hence
leave to withdraw the application is granted. The application stands
rejected as withdrawn reserving liberty to file fresh application as
stated by Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant.

7. Rule
is discharged.

(A.M. KAPADIA, J)

(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J)

(pkn)

   

Top