Gujarat High Court High Court

Abdul vs State on 25 September, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Abdul vs State on 25 September, 2008
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1207120/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12071 of 2008
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2407 of 2008
 

=========================================================


 

ABDUL
HASSAN MOVAR THRO' BILKISBANU ABDUL HUSSAIN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MRS
KRISHNA G RAWAL for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR.UR BHATT APP for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
========================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 25/09/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

1. Heard
learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for respondent
No.1.

2. This
is an application for temporary bail sought on two grounds. (1)
sickness of mother and (2) death of son and performance of 60th
day ceremony. So far as the first cause is concerned, the mother
appears to be sick but doctor states in the certificate that she
requires regular follow-up and treatment and that her general
condition is not good. The applicant is convicted of an offence of
NDPS Act relating to 12.5 kg. Charas which is more than commercial
quantity. The case, therefore, would be governed by Section 37 of the
NDPS Act and therefore, the applicant’s case for bail/even temporary
cannot be considered in absence of any exceptional circumstances. So
far as second cause is concerned, the applicant’s son has expired on
11.04.2008 and his 60th day would fall in month of June,
therefore, that cause would not survive.

3. Incidentally,
we may add that the
applicant-appellant has preferred the appeal today only which we have
admitted by condoning the delay of 1528 days.

4. Keeping
all the facts in mind, the application is found to be devoid of
merits and it is rejected.

(A.L.DAVE,
J.)

(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)

Hitesh

   

Top