Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2287/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2287 of 2010
=========================================================
ASHARIYA
SUMAR RAMANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BY MANKAD for
Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr L R Pujari, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2
-
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 10/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
Mr B Y Mankad, learned Advocate for the applicant and learned
Advocate Mr K B Anandjiwala, who states that he has instructions to
appear on behalf of the original accused namely, respondents No.3, 4
and 5.
2. It
is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, while
passing order below Exh.16 in Criminal Misc.Application No.43 of 2010
preferred by the applicants-original accused, suspended condition
No.5 imposed in Criminal Misc. Application No.47 of 2009 regarding
non-entering of the original accused in the district of Kachchh for a
period of three months even though the application considering the
main prayer to delete condition No.5 imposed regarding non-entering
of the accused in Kachchh district was rejected and also the prayer
for revoking condition till further order also came to be
rejected. Learned Advocate for the original complainant further
submits that thereafter Misc.Criminal Application was filed by the
original complainant to stay the above order dated 26.2.2010 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj and accordingly the
learned Sessions Judge has suspended the order dated 26.2.2010 till
12.3.2010.
3. It
is submitted that in a case where the accused are facing trial for
offence under section 307 etc. of IPC and they continuously
threatening the complainant and other witnesses and even the
prosecution has also expressed danger of threat to the witnesses and
tampering with evidence etc., there was no justification for the
learned Sessions Judge to suspend condition No.5 imposed by the
original order granting bail in Criminal Misc.Application 47 of 2009
by suspending it for a period of 3 months.
4. Mr
K B Anandjiwala, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents
submits that initially the accused were enlarged on bail and by
preferring application before this court, the original complainant
has restrained them from getting the benefit of bail order and the
trial is indefinitely delayed and there is no certainty. It is
further submitted that no threat was ever administered by the
original accused nor any attempts were made by the accused to induce
or threat any witness or tamper with the evidence. Since discretion
is exercised by the learned Sessions Judge considering the rival
submissions, it is submitted that no case is made out to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of
powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Having
heard the learned Advocates for the parties including the learned
APP, I am of the opinion that when request and prayer or original
accused to cancel/suspend condition No.5 imposed in Criminal Misc.
Application No.47 of 2009, while enlarging the accused by granting
bail and specific condition regarding non-entering of the accused in
Kachchh district was considered and rejected and even further prayer
to revoke the said condition also came to be rejected, there was no
justification for the learned Sessions Judge to suspend the operation
of condition No.5 for a further period of 3 months in absence of any
materials.
6. The
above approach of the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law and
against fair trial when there are specific allegations against the
accused and the applications have been filed before the District
Administration that the accused have induced threats to the witnesses
including the complainant itself is sufficient and proper to quash
and set aside the order and accordingly the order dated 26.2.2010
passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.43 of 2010 is hereby quashed
and set aside. This petition is allowed. Direct Service is
permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
msp
Top