Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4109/2008 2/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4109 of 2008
=========================================================
ASHWYAN
@ ASHLO MOHANBHAI KOLI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KANDRAP H DHOLKIA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr K P Rawal, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 13/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate, Mr K H Dholakia for the applicant and Mr K P
Rawal,the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2. The
present applicant-accused was arrested in connection with No.CR.I-78
of 2007 registered with Dhrol police station for the offences
punishable under sections 302, 365, 302, 201, 120B, 147, 148, 149
etc. of IPC. He is in jail since 12th August, 2007. It
is alleged that one Altaf, son of the complainant-Azizbhai Khimani
Sumra aged 25 years, was brutally murdered and his dead body was
found in a pond. It is alleged that Altaf did not return home on
29.5.2007 so the complainant made thorough enquiry regarding his son
but Altaf could not be traced. Altaf was working at Dhrol in the
godown of one Rehmanbhai Memonbhai and he left that job and
thereafter he was doing business of wood cutting work. It is also
alleged that Altaf was called back by Rehmanbhai to work in his
Godown and he was working in Rehmanbhai’s godown. The complainant
doubted that Altaf was kidnapped by some persons and so he lodged
police complaint on 26.6.2007. Criminal Misc.Application No.131 of
2008 was preferred by the present accused before learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.2, Jamnagar. After filing of
the charge sheet, the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge
by order dated 14.3.2008. Hence the applicant-accused has preferred
this application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. To enlarge him on
regular bail.
3. It
is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the
co-accused was arrested in connection with the same offence in the
said case, was released by this court vide its order dated 25.1.2008
and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant is also
required to be released on regular bail. It is also submitted by him
that on the basis of the statement of the witnesses which was
recorded after a lapse of time and thus there was delay in recording
such statements and that on the basis of the said delayed statements,
the present accused was arrested by the the police. It is also
submitted by him that on the basis of the statement of the
co-accused, the present accused was arrested by the police and except
this evidence there is no evidence on record against the present
accused. That the present accused is innocent and he may be released
on bail.
4. Learned
APP, Mr Rawal submitted that during the investigation, ample evidence
was collected against the present accused and confessional statement
under section 164 of the co-accused also recorded before the learned
JMFC and therefore, from the statement, prima facie, it is found that
the present accused also involved in such a serious crime.
5. This
court has gone through the order passed by the trial court. It is
held by the trial court that the accused released on bail by this
court, was not present at the place of the incident but before the
murder took place, the present accused was found to be with the
deceased. So on the ground of parity, he is not entitled to any
benefit.
6. As
per the affidavit of the Investigating Officer filed before the trial
court, the present accused is involved in other cases registered
under section 397 of IPC as well as under Arms Act. On enquiring,
the learned advocate for the accused stated that in reference to the
criminal cases in which the involvement of the present accused and
other accused, committal order is passed by the lower court and the
said sessions case is pending for framing of charge before the
Sessions Court. So in the opinion of this court, when the matter is
pending for framing of charge and when the accused are in jail, the
court will commence trial within a reasonable time.
7. In
view of the above and taking into consideration the role played by
the present accused, in the opinion of this court, in such kind of
serious offence, this application deserves to be dismissed. The
application is accordingly rejected.
[M.D.
SHAH, J.]
msp
Top