Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6148/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6148 of 2010
=========================================================
SHAHIL
@ RUKSAD MOHMOOD PATHAN
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
LALBABU C TIWARI for
Applicant
MR UA TRIVEDI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 29/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
[1] The
present application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of
the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with C.R. No.I 70 of
2009 registered with Kadodara G.I.D.C. Police Station, Vyara, for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.
[2] Heard
Mr.Lalbabu C. Tiwari, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.U. A.
Trivedi, learned APP for the respondent State.
[3]
Mr.Lalbabu C. Tiwari, learned advocate for the applicant has
submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant has
filed this application. He has submitted that the question of parity
can also be granted in this matter. He has submitted that there is no
material to connect the applicant with the said crime. He has also
submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant
and he is required to be released on bail.
[4] As
against the aforesaid, Mr.U. A. Trivedi, learned APP for the
respondent State has submitted that prima
facie case is made out against the applicant and considering
the role played by the applicant, no discretionary relief can be
granted to the applicant. He has further submitted that looking to
the statements of Amit Rameshbhai and Chetan Bansibhai, it appears
that the applicant was present with the deceased at the time of
incident. From the statement of Amit Rameshbhai, it establishes that
the deceased was taken by the applicant in his rickshaw and from the
statement of Pradeep Joshi, rickshaw driver, it clearly appears that
the applicant is involved in the alleged offence and, therefore, the
application deserves to be dismissed.
[5] Having
heard the rival submissions of learned advocates and having
considered the role attributed to the applicant and reflected in the
FIR at Annexure A, the quantum of punishment etc. and gravity of
offence, I am of the view that the present applicant was present with
the deceased at the last event also. In view of the aforesaid
observations, prima facie case is made out against the present
applicant and I am of the opinion that the present application
deserves to be dismissed.
[6] In view
of the above, this application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[
Z. K. SAIYED, J. ]
(vijay)
Top