Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/760/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 760 of 2010
=========================================================
KANTIBHAI
@ KATO DEVJIBHAI BORAD & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
DHARMESH
D NANAVATY for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS ML SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 11/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
is an application under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 by the applicants who came to be arrested in connection with I.
CR No. 164 of 2009 registered with Gondal Taluka police station,
District-Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 308,
328 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned
advocate Mr. D.D. Nanavati for the applicant submitted at the outset,
that he does not press the application qua applicant no.1 and seeks
permission to withdraw the application qua applicant no.1. The
application stands disposed of as withdrawn qua applicant no.1.
Learned advocate submitted that the applicant no.2 is an innocent
person and is falsely implicated in the alleged commission of
offence. Considering the role attributed to the applicant no.2 which
is reflected in the FIR at Annexure:A to the application, the
applicant no.2 deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned
APP Ms. M.L. Shah, representing the opponent-State, while opposing
the bail application, submitted that the applicant no.2 is also
involved in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304,
308, 328 and 114 of IPC and considering the role played by her and
the manner in which the offence is committed, no discretionary relief
be granted to applicant no.2 and the application be dismissed.
I
have heard the learned advocates of both the sides at length and in
great detail. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal
of the averments made in the application, role attributed to the
applicant no.2 which is reflected in the FIR, provisions of sections
304, 308, 328 and 114 of IPC and quantum of punishment etc., I am of
the view that the applicant no.2 deserves to be enlarged on bail on
stringent terms and conditions, without discussing the evidence in
detail.
For the
foregoing reasons, the application qua applicant no.2 is allowed and
the applicant no.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection
with I-CR No.164/2009 registered with Gondal Taluka Police Station,
District-Rajkot on executing a bond of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees twenty
thousand only] with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court and subject to the conditions that she shall:
[a] not
take undue advantage of her liberty or abuse her liberty;
[b] not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender
her passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;
[d] not
leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the
Sessions Court concerned;
[e] furnish
the present address of her residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change her
residence without prior permission of this Court;
[f] maintain
law and order.
If
breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions
Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate
action in the matter.
Bail
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try
the case.
At the
trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of
preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this
Court while enlarging the applicant no.2 on bail.
Rule is
discharged qua applicant no.1 and Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent qua applicant no.2.
Direct
service is permitted.
[H.B.
Antani, J.]
pirzada/-
Top