Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6226/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6226 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2114 of 2009
=========================================
AMITA
RATILAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
SHALIN MEHTA FOR MS VIDHI J BHATT
for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR
HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
ASHWINBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, PARTY-IN-PERSON for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 06/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present application, applicant has prayed to modify the
Condition Nos.3 an 4 of the order dated 10th April, 2008
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.3, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.38 of 2008.
Heard
Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned counsel for Ms.Vidhi Bhatt, learned counsel
for the applicant, Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, i.e.
Mr.Ashwinbhai Jayantilal Patel, Party-in-Person.
Mr.Mehta
has contended that the applicant is Talati-cum-Mantri of Ranpur
Taluka, which is within the Ahmedabad revenue district limit. He has
contended that the applicant is staying in Kanbha with her father,
mother and her brother’s child, who is seven years old. The father
and mother of the applicant are old aged persons and they required
presence of the applicant to look after them as well as the child.
He has also contended that in the present case, charge-sheet is
filed long back in the year 2009. By now more than two years has
already been passed and the trial is yet not proceeded. He has
further contended that if the condition Nos.3 and 4 of the order
dated 10th April, 2008 may be deleted, no question
regarding breach of law and peace can be arise. He, therefore,
prayed that present application may kindly be allowed by deleting
the condition Nos.3 and 4 of the order dated 10th April,
2008.
As
against this, Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has
opposed the present application and contended that prayer as prayed
for may not be granted.
Heard
respondent No.2-Mr.Ashwinbhai Jayantilal Patel, Party-in-Person. He
has opposed the present application and contended that if the
conditions are modified, then there are chances that again the
applicant threatened him and question of safety and security is
required to be protected.
Heard
all the parties and perused the papers produced before me. It
appears that the respondent No.2 has opposed the present application
only because of fear. Mr.Mehta has assured that the applicant will
maintain law and order. It also appears from the perusal of the
papers that father and mother of the applicant are old aged persons
and suffering from old age problems. It also appears from the papers
that the present respondent No.2 has challenged the orders dated
30th November, 2010 and 10th December, 2010
passed by this Court before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave
Petitions (Criminal); however, the Apex Court has dismissed the said
Special Leave Petitions. Looking to the facts of the case and
averments made in the application, I am of the opinion that present
application is required to be allowed.
Hence,
in view of above, present application is allowed. The Condition
Nos.3 and 4 of the order dated 10th April, 2008 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3,
Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.38 of 2008 as well as condition imposed upon the applicant, viz.
“the applicant shall not enter into Kanbha and Kunjad
village till further orders” vide
order dated 10th
December, 2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.15067 of 2010 are hereby deleted. Order
accordingly. Rule is made absolute.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top