Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6077/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6077 of 2010
======================================
RAJUBHAI
@ GADU SHIVABHAI PARALIYA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
YATIN SONI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR RC KODEKAR, ADDL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 16/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of Rule on behalf of respondent-State. By consent, Rule is
fixed forthwith.
2. The
applicants original accused, who have not been named as accused in
CR.-I-No.13 of 2010 registered with Umrala. Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 457,380,511,307 and 114 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act have moved this Court
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking bail
pending investigation and trial.
3. The
accused moved the application being Criminal Misc. Application No.223
of 2010 before the concerned Sessions Court, which came to be
rejected on 18.5.2010.
4. Looking
to averments made in the F.I.R and the allegations as well as the
likelihood of punishment of conviction, this Court is persuaded to
exercise discretion in favour of the applicants-accused to enlarge
them on bail for the following reasons:
(i) Prima-facie,
no specific role attributable to present applicants emerge.
(ii) Looking
to the averments and nature of evidence and role of the applicants,
they deserve to be enlarged on bail pending trial.
(iii) The
applicants have their wherewithal at their ordinary place of
residence and therefore, there is no likelihood of they fleeing from
justice and their presence could be procured at the time of trial.
(iv) The
prosecution has not voiced any grievance or expressed any
apprehension that they are likely to flee from justice, if the
applicants are released on bail.
(v) The
prosecution has also not expressed any grievance or apprehension that
they are capable of tempering with evidences or influencing the
witnesses, if the applicants are released on bail.
(vi) The
Sessions Court has not appreciated these aspects and therefore, the
said order deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, it
is quashed and set aside.
5. The
aforesaid observations are made only for the purpose of examining the
prayer for bail pending trial. These observations are prima-facie and
shall have no bearing whatsoever upon the trial and the trial Court
shall not be influenced by it in any way and come to its own
conclusion after analyzing the evidence that may be led during the
trial.
6. Considering
the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having regard to
the circumstances and facts of the case, the application is allowed
and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection
with CR.-I-No.13 of 2010 registered with Umrala Police Station on
their executing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)
each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the lower Court and subject to the conditions that they shall:
(a) not
take undue advantage of their liberty or abuse their liberty:
(b) not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution:
(c) maintain
law and order;
(d) mark
their presence before concerned Police Station on every 15th
day of each English calendar month between 9.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.
(e) not
leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the
Sessions Court concerned;
(f) furnish
the address of their residence at the time of execution of the bond
and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this
Court;
(g) surrender
the passport, if any, to the Lower Court within a week.
7. 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.
8. Bail
before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
9. Rule
is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
(S.R.
Brahmbhatt, J. )
sudhir
Top