Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance: vs Ms Nandini Joshi App For on 2 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Appearance: vs Ms Nandini Joshi App For on 2 August, 2011
Author: J.M.Panchal, Honourable J.R.Vora,
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD



     CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No 79 of 2002


           in


     CRIMINAL APPEALNo 99       of 2000




     --------------------------------------------------------------
     VIJAYBHAI RANGLAL CHAURASIA
Versus
     STATE OF GUJARAT
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Appearance:
          MS SMITA R PATEL for Petitioner No. 1
          MS NANDINI JOSHI APP for Respondents
     --------------------------------------------------------------


                CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
                                   and
                        MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA


                Date of Order: 11/01/2002


     ORAL ORDER

(Per : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)
Rule. Ms.Nandini Joshi learned APP waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
Having regard to the facts of the case, this Application
is taken up for final disposal today. By submitting this
Application, the applicant i.e. Vijaybhai Ranglal
Chaurasia, who is undergoing sentence of life
imprisonment at Central Jail, Baroda, has prayed to
enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of two months
so as to enable him to take treatment from private doctor
for his heart ailment.Heard learned counsel for the
parties. The record of the case shows that Ranjanaben
Vijaybhai Chaurasia, who is wife of the applicant had
filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 8108/2001 claiming
relief on the same ground, and that the said application
was rejected by the Division Bench comprising R.K.
Abichandani and D.K.Trivedi, JJ, vide order dated October
15, 2001. The record of the case shows that the
petitioner is suffering from hypertension and other
ailments, for which he is being treated at the Civil
Hospital. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are
of the opinion that no case is made out by the applicant
for granting the relief and, therefore, the application
is liable to be rejected.

For the foregoing reasons, the Application fails
and is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(J.M. Panchal, J.)

(J.R. Vora, J.)

p.n.nair