Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7203/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7203 of 2008
======================================
MANUBHAI
KARSANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT
======================================
Appearance :
MRS
SHILPA R SHAH for Applicant
Ms.
Falguni Patel, APP, for
Respondent
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 20/06/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1 Heard
learned advocates for the parties.
2 This
is a third successive bail application filed by the applicant for
bail in connection with the C.R. No.I-264 of 2005 registered with
Unjha Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
201, 196, 120B read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 Ms.
Shilpa R. Shah, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the
newly added accused person, namely, Rajendra Bhanuprasad Yagnik
approached initially this Court by filing Criminal Revision
Application No.93 of 2008, which came to be dismissed by order dated
15.2.2008, against which, the above accused person approached the
Apex Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal [Cri.]
No.1948 of 2008 and the Apex Court was pleased to stay operation of
the order dated 11.2.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. She
further submits that the petitioner is about 62 years and suffering
from various ailments like blood-pressure, diabetic, cardiac ailment
and the wife of the applicant is also to be operated for kidney
transplant. The applicant is in jail since 26th September
2006 and, therefore, in the back-drop of the above facts, this
application for bail deserves consideration by this Court in
exercise of power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. It is submitted that, otherwise, continuous incarceration
of the applicant in jail amounts to pre-trial punishment.
4 Learned
APP submits that this is a successive application and involvement of
the applicant as a police officer while discharging his duties is in
heinous offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 196, 120B read
with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and does not deserve a
second look by this Court.
5 Having
heard the learned advocates for the parties, in my view, the stay
granted by the Apex Court, as stated above, cannot be a ground to
enlarge the applicant on bail. According to this Court, there is no
change in facts or circumstance and, considering the judgment of the
Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in
(2004) 7 SCC 528, and for the reasons recorded in the earlier orders
dated 19.10.2007 and 30.7.2008 for refusing bail, this third
successive application for bail is rejected.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
(swamy)
Top