Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5379/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5379 of 2010
======================================
VIMALBHAI
KANAIYALAL SOMAIYA - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR C P CHAMPANERI for the
Applicant.
MS CHETANA SHAH, APP for Respondent No.1.
None for
Respondent No.2.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 21/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred by the applicant herein original
complainant for cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent
No.2 herein and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated
10/05/2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in
Criminal Misc. Application No.255 of 2010, by which, the petitioner
was released on regular bail in connection with the complaint being
C.R.No.I/51/08 registered with Manavadar Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 407, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472,
474, 114, 120(B), 419 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. At
the outset, it is required to be noted that the name of respondent
-accused was not disclosed in the FIR. However, his name came to be
disclosed in the further investigation under Section 173(8) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also required to be noted that even
respondent No.2 original accused was granted anticipatory bail
by the learned Sessions Court and pursuant to the order passed by
learned Sessions Judge, respondent No.2 appeared before the Police
and was arrested within stipulated time as ordered by the learned
Sessions Court while granting anticipatory bail and there is no
breach of any of the conditions of the anticipatory bail by
respondent No.2.
3. Considering
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has exercised the discretion and released
respondent No.2 on bail, it cannot be said that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in
him and/or has committed any error in releasing respondent No.2 on
bail. No case is made out to exercise the jurisdiction under Section
439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to cancel the bail
granted in favour of respondent No.2.
4. Under
the circumstances, the present application deserves to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top