Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1070420/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10704 of 2008
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12125 of 2007
=========================================
BHARATBHAI
M ODEDARA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
DHARMESH D
NANAVATY for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR.H.L.JANI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 13/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule, learned
A.P.P. H. L.Jani wavies service of rule. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and by consent of learned counsel of both
the sides, the application is taken up for hearing today.
2. This
is an application with a prayer in paragraph 9(A) of the application
to delete the conditions No. f) and i) imposed by passing an order in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.12125 of 2007 dated 24.10.2007.
The conditions No. f) and i) are reproduced hereinabelow:
f) mark presence before Gandhinagar, Sector-7 Police Station once in
a month i.e., on any day between 1st and 7th
day of every month, any time between 11:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m, till
the conclusion of the trial;
i) not
enter into the local/ revenue limits of Porbandar, till the
conclusion of the trial, without prior permission of this court,
but for attending the Court in connection with this case he will be
free to enter the limits for a period to the extent necessary and
will leave the limits immediately after the case is adjourned;
3. Learned
advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is suffering
from cardiac disease and is a patient having acute diabetics.
Therefore, conditions No.f) and i) be deleted. Learned advocate
submitted that other accused persons on whom the aforesaid conditions
are imposed have also moved similar applications and the conditions
No.f) and i) came to be deleted. Therefore, even on that ground, the
application requires to be considered and the prayer as set out in
the para 9(A) be granted. Learned advocate also submitted that once
in a week he has to visit Porbandar in order to attend trial court.
Therefore, it is fit case to delete conditions No.f) and i).
4. Mr.H.L.Jani,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State,
submitted that trial has commenced at Porbandar and it is likely to
be over in the near future. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, no interference is called for and the application
preferred by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.
5. I
have heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor at length and in great detail. I have perused the
averments made in the application as well as the order passed by the
learned Judge (Coram :Akshay Mehta, J.) in Criminal Misc. Application
No.12125 of 2007 dated 24.10.2007 and the conditions No. f) and i)
imposed by the learned Judge while granting bail to the applicant.
6. Considering
the fact that the trial court has already commenced and the same is
likely to be over in the near future and the fact that medical
facility is available in Gandhinagar, the prayer as set out in the
application, in my considered view, cannot be granted. In view of the
above, the application is, hereby, rejected. Rule discharged.
(H.B.Antani,
J.)
sudhir
Top