Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1705/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1705 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9745 of 2003
=========================================================
BHARTIBEN
DAXBHAI VAKIL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MITESH R AMIN for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KL PANDYA APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
AVANI MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 23/02/2010
ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP Mr Pandya waives service of notice of Rule for respondent
No.1 State and learned advocate Ms Avani Mehta waives service of
notice of Rule for respondent No.2 -Bank.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr Limbachiya for the applicant, learned APP Mr
Pandya for the State and learned advocate Ms Avani Mehta for the
Bank.
3. This
is an application for modification of the conditions imposed by this
Court while admitting the applicant to bail. The conditions sought to
be modified are –
(i) that
the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of this
Court, and
(ii) surrender
her passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week.
These
conditions were imposed by order dated 17.1.2004 in Criminal Misc.
Application No.9745 of 2003.
4. The
reason for modification is that the applicant’s daughter-in-law, who
is settled in USA, is on her family way and expects to deliver a
child in early part of March 2010. The applicant has produced
supportive documents.
5. Learned
advocate Mr Limbachiya submitted that the applicant does not propose
to stay in USA permanently and shall return to India on completion of
the period that this Court may grant.
6. The
objection raised by the opponents is that the trial is proceeding
regularly and departure of the applicant to USA would cause hindrance
in the trial. In this context, learned advocate Mr Limbachiya states
that the applicant does not nor does she propose to raise any dispute
of identity during the trial. This statement the applicant is ready
to make during her trial before the trial Court as well and would
request for grant of exemption so that the trial is not deterred.
7. Considering
the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view
that the application merits to be accepted in part.
8. The
application is allowed. The applicant is permitted to leave India for
a period of two months from the date of her departure. Her passport
shall be returned to her by the trial Court. The above modification
is temporary and subject to the following conditions :-
(i) the
applicant shall intimate the trial Court the date of her departure
and the proposed date of return, which shall not be beyond two months
from the date of departure ;
(ii) upon
return to India, the applicant shall re-surrender the passport before
the trial Court within one week;
(iii)the
applicant shall intimate her address in USA to the trial Court at the
time of receiving the passport from the trial Court;
(iv) the
applicant shall make the same statement before the trial Court that
she does not dispute her identity and that the trial may proceed here
in her absence.
Rule
is made absolute accordingly.
Direct
service is permitted today.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
zgs/-
Top