Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1052220/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10522 of 2008
=========================================================
SURAJ
@ SURESHBHAI MAVLABHAI SANSI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MA KHARADI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS ML SHAH APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 11/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Ms.M.L. Shah, learned A.P.P. waives service of Rule on behalf of the
State. In the facts and circumstances of the case and by consent of
the learned advocates of both the sides, this application is taken up
for hearing today.
2. This
application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for regular bail in connection with FIR registered as
CR.No.I 97 of 2008 with Dahod Town Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. At
the out set, Mr.M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the petitioners
submitted that he does not press this application qua petitioner
No.1. Learned advocate submitted that considering the role
attributed to petitioner No.2, which is reflected in the F.I.R. at
Annexure A to the petition, it is a fit case to enlarge petitioner
No.2 on bail. The learned advocate also submitted that he would abide
by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting
bail.
4. Ms.Shah,
learned A.P.P., representing the State, submitted that taking into
account the role attributed to petitioner No.2 and the manner in
which the alleged offence is committed by him, prayer as set out in
the petition does not call for any interference by this Court and the
petition deserves to be rejected.
5. I
have heard Mr.Kharadi, learned advocate for the petitioners and
Ms.Shah, learned A.P.P. for the State at length and in great detail.
I have also perused the averments made in the petition, the FIR
produced along with the petition and the order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, F.T.C., Dahod in
Criminal Misc. Application No.428 of 2008 dated 18.07.2008 and the
reasons assigned therein. The petitioner is booked for the offences
punishable under Sections 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Considering the role attributed to petitioner No.2 in the commission
of offence punishable under Sections 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, the gravity of offence and quantum of punishment, I am inclined
to exercise my discretion in favour of petitioner No.2, without
entering into the merits of the case.
6. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is partly
allowed and petitioner No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in
connection with F.I.R. bearing CR.No.I 97 of 2008 registered at
Dahod Town Police Station on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees
ten thousand only] with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to the conditions that he
shall:
[a] not
take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;
[b] not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender
his 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] mark
his presence at the concerned Police Station on any day of every
first week of English calendar month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM.
till the trial is over;
[f] furnish
the present address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his
residence without prior permission of this Court;
[g] maintain
law and order.
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
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try
the case.
9. 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 petitioner No.2 on bail.
Rule
is discharged qua petitioner No.1.
Rule
is made absolute qua petitioner No.2.
Direct
Service is permitted.
[H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
Hitesh
Top