Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7269/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7269 of 2010
=========================================================
AJITSINH
RATANSINH DABHI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KIRTIDEV R DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR RAHUL K DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR UA
TRIVEDI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 20/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
applicant has filed this Application for granting him anticipatory
bail in connection with CR No. I 61 of 2010 registered with Vaso
Police Station for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. Dave for the applicant and learned APP Mr.
Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the respondent State. I have
also perused the papers produced before me.
Mr.
Dave has contended that the applicant is serving as Talati cum
Mantri. There was communal disturbance in the village along with
other parts of the State of Gujarat and many houses in the village
were set ablaze. One of the houses was of one Pathan Amirkhan
Shamsherkhan and the claim was filed in his name. The TDO issued
first cheque in the name of Amirkhan Pathan, but, as the applicant
learned that said Amirkhan Pathan is a dead person and, therefore,
the cheque was not delivered and returned back. He has contended
that the applicant is wrongly involved in the commission of offence.
He is simply a Talati and he has worked as per the instruction of
his superior. He has also contended that the cheque was already
given to the victim lady and the applicant is nowhere involved in
the alleged offence.
Learned
APP Mr. Trivedi has vehemently opposed this application. He has
contended that there is prima-facie involvement of the applicant in
the commission of offence. He has contended that in the name of dead
person bogus signature was created and obtained help from the
Government in the year 2002 and when the deceased was not available
in his name bogus document was prepared.
I
have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also perused
the papers produced before me. From the papers it clearly appears
that prima facie case is made out against the applicant and,
therefore, at this stage, it is not desirable to entertain this
application.
In
view of above, this application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
sas
Top