Gujarat High Court High Court

Hareshkumar vs The on 17 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Hareshkumar vs The on 17 October, 2008
Author: C.K.Buch,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1123220/2008	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11232 of 2008
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 332 of 2007
 

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

 

HARESHKUMAR
JAYANTILAL @ JAGJIVANBHAI SHRIMALI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Applicant(s) : 1. 
MS DS PANDIT, LD.ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/10/2008
 

ORAL
ORDER

Heard
Shri Vishal Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and
Ms.D.S. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on
behalf of the opponent-State.

Rule.

The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by Ms.D.S. Pandit,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the
opponent-State. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent.

The
applicant has prayed that the condition nos.(f) and (g) imposed upon
the applicant vide order dated 09th May 2007 may be
deleted and appropriate orders may be passed.

On
plain reading of the aforesaid two conditions, it emerges that vide
Condition No.(f), the applicant is asked not to change his
residence. As he is a tenant in the premises at present occupied by
him, he can change the premises and go at new residence I the same
town or within district. In such a case, the applicant shall furnish
that new address to the Investigating Officer, but it would not be
appropriate for the Court to delete this condition because the
material alteration in this condition may tempt the applicant to
abscond.

So
far as Condition No.(g) is concerned, the applicant is asked to
surrender his passport, if any. If the applicant does not have any
passport, he is not supposed to surrender the same. So there is no
scope for this Court to delete the said Condition No.(g). On the
contrary, the Court is of the view that in the event of applicant’s
obtaining passport, on receipt of the delivery of the original
passport, he shall surrender the same forthwith to the police.

It
is clarified that if applicant is asked to go for training or
another work and he has to stay outside, the same shall not be
considered as change in address or violation of the said condition
imposed if the period does not exceed 90 days continuously.

In
view of aforesaid, the present application is hereby partly allowed.
The applicant is permitted to change his residence after intimating
the concerned Investigating Officer one week in advance.

Rule
is made absolute accordingly.

(C.K.

Buch, J)

Aakar

   

Top