Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1140/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1140 of 2007
=========================================================
BALKRISHNA
FULABHAI MISTRY EX-BRANCH MANAGER - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BS PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1
MR RC KODELAR, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR DEVANG VYAS for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 15/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
Applicant has filed this application for cancellation of regular
bail, granted to the respondent no.2-accused, vide order dated 19th
May 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baroda, in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.540 of 2006.
Against
the present respondent no.2-original accused, criminal complaint was
registered with Padra Police Station bearing CR No. I-16 of 2006 for
the offences punishable under Sections 408, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code. The respondent no.2-accused was Secretary in
Pratappura Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, Savli, District-Vadodara
during the period 1992 to 2006. During that period, he has
misappropriated an amount of Rs.70,84,480/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs
Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Only)by forging
signatures of the members of the Mandli, Promissory Notes, etc.
Heard
Mr. Chirag Patel for Mr. B.S. Patel, learned counsel for the
applicant. He has contended that the learned Judge has not
considered the seriousness of the offence committed by the
respondent no.2-accused. He has also contended that the learned
Judge has not considered the documentary evidence produced before
him during the hearing of the bail application. He has also
contended that the learned
Judge has not properly appreciated the facts of
the case and wrongly bail was granted to the respondent-accused.
I
have gone through the papers produced before me and also gone
through the order passed by the Trial Court. Today Mr. Chirag Patel
is unable to convince this Court about the ground on which bail can
be cancelled.
In
view of above, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge, Baroda,
has not committed any error while granting bail to the respondent
no.2-accused and no interference is required to be called for by
this Court. Hence, this application is dismissed accordingly. Rule
is discharged.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top