Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/11036/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11036 of 2011
=========================================================
BHADRESH
@ LALO ARJANBHAI RABARI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRASHANT G. DESAI, SR. ADVOCATE for MR. MRUGEN K PUROHIT
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR RC KODEKAR, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 26/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondents.
The
applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for enlarging him on regular bail in
connection with the offence being CR No. I-28 of 2010 registered
with Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences under
Section 302, 324 and 114 of I.P. Code and under Section 135(1) of
the Bombay Police Act.
Learned
Counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is
innocent person and has not played any role in the alleged incident
and at that time he was a student. He has contended that the alleged
incident has occurred in a heat of moment and due to sudden quarrel
the deceased received the injuries. There was no intention on the
part of the accused to kill the deceased. He has contended that the
deceased along with the complainant came to the place of occurrence
with deadly weapon and have assaulted them with deadly weapons and
only in the self defence the alleged incident has occurred. He has
also contended that cross case was also registered against the
complainant party. He has contended that the applicant has not
played any role and there was no intention on the part of the
applicant to commit crime. He has contended that now the
charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no possibility of
tampering the documents by the applicant. He, therefore, prays that
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned
APP has read the statement of the witnesses and vehemently contended
that looking to the seriousness of the offence, the applicant may
not be enlarged on bail.
Having
heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the witnesses and
the fact that the cross case has also been filed against the
complainant party and it also appears that the learned Sessions
Judge has also passed an order against the accused –
complainant party for adding Section 307 of I.P. Code, and also the
fact now the charge-sheet is filed and that there is no definite
allegation made against the present applicant, I am inclined to
grant bail to the applicant. No doubt, this is successive bail
application, but, looking to the fact that the learned Sessions
Judge has also passed order adding the Section 307 I.P. Code in a
cross case, filed against the complainant party, I am inclined to
enlarge the applicant on bail. However, both the parties do not
press for reasoned order.
Considering
the above, this Application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to
be enlarged on bail in connection with CR No.I – 28 of 2010
registered with Satellite Police Station for the offence alleged
against him in this application on his executing a Bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one solvent 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
to try to tamper or pressurise the prosecution witnesses or
complainant in any manner;
c) maintain
law and order and should cooperate the Investigating Officers;
d) shall
mark his presence before the Satellite Police Station on every last
day of the month between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. till the trial is
over.
e) not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
f) not
leave the country without the prior permission of the concerned
Sessions Judge.
g) furnish
the 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 the residence
without prior permission of this Court;
h) surrender
his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week.
5. If
breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned
Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate
action in the matter.
6. Bail
before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would
be open to the trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the
solvency certificate if prayed for.
7. Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
sas
Top