Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2046/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2046 of 2010
=========================================================
USHABEN
JOSHI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 16/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
is an application preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail by the applicant who is
apprehending her arrest in connection with C.R. No. I-35 of 2010
registered with Pradyumannagar police station, Rajkot City for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal
Code.
Learned
advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is absolutely innocent lady and she is not connected with
the offences alleged in the complaint. The complaint has been filed
after considerable delay and the applicant is a lady and she has to
take care of her daughter. She is the only member who is earning
livelihood in the family. Considering the role attributed to the
applicant as can be seen from the FIR, she deserves to be granted
anticipatory bail as prayed for in the application.
Mr.
H.L. Jani, learned APP, representing the opponent State, while
opposing the anticipatory bail application, submitted that the
applicant is involved in the offence punishable under sections 406,
420 and 114 of IPC. Considering the role attributed to the applicant
and the manner in which the offence is committed by the her, no
discretionary relief deserves to be granted to the applicant since
she was in charge of the office of Sai Immigration. Amount to the
tune of Rs. 32,000/- was also accepted by her on behalf of Sai
Immigration Office and thereafter, the amount in question was not
returned to the concerned parties. Thus, considering the role of the
applicant, no interference is called for and the application deserves
to be dismissed.
I
have considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the role
attributed to the applicant, police papers, statements of witnesses,
provisions of sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC, quantum of punishment
etc., applicant is, prima facie, involved in the offence in question.
The applicant has received amount of Rs. 32,000/- from the customers
in connection with issuance of passport and thereafter the amount in
question is also not refunded by the Sai Immigration Office.
Considering the aforesaid aspect and the manner in which the alleged
offence is committed by the applicant and criminal antecedent, she,
in my view, is not entitled to discretionary relief as prayed for in
the application.
For
the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application and the
same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
pirzada/-
Top