Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2972/2006 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2972 of 2006
=========================================================
CHANDUBHAI
NARSIHHBHAI KOLI (PATEL) - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VIREN G DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 10/04/2006
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 By
way of this application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, the applicant has prayed this Court to release him on bail on
appropriate terms and conditions in connection with the offence
punishable under Section 342, 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
registered as C.R. No.I- 7 of 2006 at Bavla Police Station.
2.0 The
applicant had, earlier, preferred an application for bail being
Criminal Misc. Application No. 189 of 2006 before the learned
District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in connection with the aforesaid
offence which was rejected by the learned Judge. Hence, this
application.
3.0 Learned
Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the learned Judge ought
to have appreciated the fact that the present applicant has been
falsely implicated in the case. He has further submitted that the
learned Judge has committed an error in ignoring the fact that during
the course of investigation, there is no direct or indirect offence
come from the charge-sheet indicating role of the present applicant
in the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the learned
Judge ought to have appreciated the fat that there is delay of about
one day in filing the complaint of the alleged offence.
4.0 On
the other hand, learned A.P.P. has supported the order of the learned
District Judge and contended that the learned Judge has passed the
said order after taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the present case, and hence, no case is made out
calling interference of this Court.
5.0 Heard
learned Counsel for the parties. On a perusal of the documents on
record it appears that the present applicant had preferred a bail
application before the learned District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in
connection with the aforesaid alleged offence. The learned Judge
while deciding the said application has observed that from the record
it appears that the complainant’s family has no prejudice against the
present applicant and the age of the complainant is about sixteen
years, and therefore, it cannot be said that she has filed a false
complaint against all the accused and has wrongly implicated the
present applicant in the said offence. As regards the contention of
the learned Advocate for the applicant that there is delay of about
one day in filing the complaint, the learned Judge has observed that
the offence is of such a serious nature that it is bound to take
time, and hence, the same cannot be said to be false only on that
ground and rejected the bail application of the present applicant.
5.1 In
above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prima-facie
involvement of the present applicant by way of helping the main
accused in the commission of the said offence cannot be ruled out at
this stage. Hence, this application deserves to be rejected.
6.0 In
the result, the application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.
(K.S.
Jhaveri,J.)
Umesh/
Top