Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/13220/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13220 of 2009
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8165 of 2003
=========================================================
SURENDRA
BANSILAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GC RAY for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR DC SEJPAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR KL PANDYA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 11/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 482 read
with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking
modification of the order of bail passed by this Court in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 8165 of 2003.
It
is submitted by Mr. G.C. Ray, learned advocate for the applicant
that when Special Criminal Application No. 670 of 2004 was filed by
the applicant before this Court [Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.] and the
learned Judge passed an order on 14.2.2007, observing therein that
appropriate application can be filed before the appropriate court or
authority seeking modification of the earlier order passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 8165 of 2003 as well as seeking bail
under Section 439 of the Code.
In
view of the said order dated 14.2.2007, it is submitted
that the applicant has preferred the present application,
wherein, prayer is made in para 11[B] which reads as under:-
Be
pleased to pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances
of the case in the original bail order in Misc. Criminal Application
No. 8165 of 2003 dated 17.10.2003, modifying and altering or deleting
the unnatural conditions qua applicant for other borrowers to whom
the applicant as a guarantor in the said order in the interest of
justice and release the applicant in connection with M. Case No. 5 of
2002 registered as per charge sheet herein qua the applicant
registered at Nadiad Police Station.
Learned
advocate submitted that considering the change in the circumstances
and since co-accused is already granted bail by this Court [Coram:
M.D. Shah, J.] vide order dated 22.10.08 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 8183 of 2008, the present applicant be also granted
bail as prayed for in the application.
Learned
APP Mr.D.C. Sejpal, representing the opponent State, while resisting
the application submitted that earlier order was passed by this High
Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8165 of 2003 on 17.10.2003 by
assigning detailed reasons. Thereafter, another application was
preferred being Criminal Misc. Application No. 10185 of 2003 before
the learned Judge seeking modification in the order. The said
application was considered and thereafter, it was rejected vide order
dated 16.4.2004. Present application is third application preferred
by the applicant with identical prayer to grant bail as prayed for
in para 10[B] and, therefore, the application does not call for
interference and the same deserves to be rejected.
I
have heard Mr. G.C. Ray for the applicant, Mr. D.C. Sejpal, learned
APP for the opponent State, as well as Mr. K.L. Pandya for the
complainant, at length and in great detail. Considering the
submissions canvassed by the learned advocates of both the sides and
on perusal of the earlier order dated 17.10.03 passed by this Court
in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8165 of 2003 and subsequent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 10185 of 2003 which was decided by
order dated 16.6.04, I am of the view that no interference is called
for as this Court is not sitting in appeal over the order passed by
the coordinate bench of this Court. It is true that the applicant had
filed Special Criminal Application No. 670 of 2004 wherein, it has
been observed that the petitioner can file appropriate application
before the appropriate Court and authority and, therefore, the
present application is filed by the applicant seeking relief as
prayed for in the application. Considering the aforesaid aspect and
since adequate reasons are assigned by the learned Judge in the
earlier order dated 17.10.2003 passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 8165 of 2003 and subsequently in Criminal Misc. Application
No.10185 of 2003 dated 16.6.2004, no interference is called for in
the present application as it would amount to reviewing the earlier
order passed by this Court.
For
the foregoing reason, there is no merit in the application and the
same is rejected. Rule is discharged.
[H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
pirzada/-
Top