Gujarat High Court High Court

==========================================Appearance vs Mr Rc Kodekar on 18 June, 2008

Gujarat High Court
==========================================Appearance vs Mr Rc Kodekar on 18 June, 2008
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/2639/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2639 of 2008
 

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

HARJIBHAI
BHAICHANDBHAI RAVAL WRITER POLICE CONSTABLE 

 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT 

 

==========================================Appearance
: 
MR
H.S.MULIA for MR MANISH G JOSHI for the Applicant 
MR RC KODEKAR,
ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent 
==========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/06/2008 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. This
is not denied that the applicant had made certain interpolation in
the police record. In the case of the applicant, he did so under
the instructions of his superiors. As a police official, if the
present applicant does something, like tampering of the record under
the orders of the superior as is the defence of the applicant, is
something, which is required to be deprecated. Such individual in the
police services having committed crime of the nature brings bad
name to the forces and such bad name has tendency of the
demoralizing a force, which is supposed to discharge salutary
function of keeping the law and order. The very allegation that the
superior persuaded him to make interpolation smacks of some kind
of thing which cannot be appreciated in the circumstances of
democratic State. This being the position, such police official,
who has tendency of playing with the record in the fashion in which
the present applicant has done, he is required to be dealt with
sternly. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail.

2. The
learned counsel for the applicant says that the co-accused, who is
said to have been the person who has influenced the petitioner, has
been released on anticipatory bail. Be that as it may, this Court
feels that might be there were some circumstances. As far as the
present applicant is concerned, he is required to be dealt with
strictly.

3. In
that view of the matter, this Court is not persuaded to grant the
bail to the applicant. The application is dismissed. Notice is
discharged.

(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)

omkar

   

Top