Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1526/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1526 of 2010
=========================================================
BABUBHAI
@ RAJ DEVABHAI KANARA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VH KANARA for
Applicant(s) : 1
MR AJ DESAI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 26/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Mr. A.J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service
of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
The
applicant has filed this application against the order dated 01st
January 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.2, Surendrangar, Camp at Limbdi, in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.493 of 2009 rejecting the bail
application.
Originally,
criminal complaint was registered against the applicant-accused with
Panshina Police Station at I-C.R. No.78 of 2008 for the offences
punishable under Sections 328, 397, 120(A) and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code and the applicant and other accused persons were arrested
by the police in connection with the said offences.
After
filing of charge-sheet, the applicant-accused preferred application
before this Court, which came to be allowed by order dated 20th
February 2009 and the applicant-accused was enlarged on bail on
certain conditions. But, during the trial, the applicant-accused has
not remained present before the Sessions Court at Limbdi on 26th
August 2009. Therefore, Sessions Court has issued non-bailable
warrant against the applicant-accused. On 10th December
2009 the applicant-accused came to be arrested and he was sent to
the judicial custody.
Thereafter,
the applicant-accused preferred application for obtaining bail,
which came to be rejected on the ground that the applicant-accused
failed to remain present on 26th August 2009 and thus, he
has not followed the conditions, which were imposed upon him at the
time of granting bail.
Heard
Mr. Kanara, learned counsel for the applicant. He has contended that
the applicant-accused is a young boy. In future the
applicant-accused will strictly adhere to the terms and conditions
imposed upon him. He has also contended that it is not the case of
the prosecution that because of absence of applicant-accused, trial
has been delayed.
I
have gone through the papers produced before me and also gone
through the order passed by the Trial Court. It appears from the
papers that during the trial, the applicant could not remain present
before the learned Sessions Court on 26th August 2009. No
doubt there is some negligency on the part of the applicant-accused,
but, this is not a ground to refuse the bail. Even it is not the
case of the prosecution that if the applicant-accused will be
released on bail, the applicant-accused may tamper with the
evidence.
In
view of above observations, the present application is allowed and
the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with
I-C.R. No. 78 of 2008 registered with Panshina Police Station,
Surendranagar for the offences alleged against him on the same terms
and conditions which have been imposed vide order dated 20th
February 2009 and on executing fresh bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only). Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top