Gujarat High Court High Court

=========================================Appearance vs Being on 20 October, 2011

Gujarat High Court
=========================================Appearance vs Being on 20 October, 2011
Author: G.B.Shah,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/14891/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14891 of 2011
 

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

STATE
OF GUJARAT 

 

Versus
 

DHYANSINH
RAJENDRASINH PARIHAR 

 

=========================================Appearance
: 
MR MG
NANAVATI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for the Applicant
 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 20/10/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 12.8.2011 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Criminal
Misc. Application No.2923 of 2011 whereby the respondent-accused was
granted regular bail in connection with offences punishable under
Sections 120(B), 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 217, 221, 109 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 65(a) to (e), 66(1)(b),
67-1A, 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, the
applicant-State of Gujarat has filed this Misc. Criminal Application
for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents-accused under
Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Heard
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati for the
applicant State.

3. I
have gone through order passed by the learned Judge, more
particularly, para 5 of the order. In my view, the discretion on the
point of parity exercised by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be
correct. For cancellation of bail, conduct subsequent to release on
bail and the supervening circumstances are relevant to be looked
into. To me, there appears no overwhelming circumstance which demands
cancellation of the bail order passed by the trial court.

4. This
Court is of the view that the learned Trial Judge has considered all
relevant parameters while granting regular bail to the respondent. On
behalf of the applicant, nothing has been indicated to show that the
respondent has, in any manner, misused the liberty granted to him. In
the circumstances, no case is made out for cancellation of the
regular bail granted to the respondent. The application, being devoid
of merits, is accordingly rejected at the stage of admission.

(G.B.

SHAH, J.)

omkar

   

Top