Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Chaudhari vs State on 13 August, 2008
Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/10705/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10705 of 2008
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2149 of 2008
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

CHAUDHARI
NANJIBHAI PRATAPBHAI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DK CHAUDHARI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 13/08/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP Mr.K.P.Raval for
the respondent State.

Rule.

Mr.K.P.Raval, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of
respondent State.

The
present application has been filed by the applicant-accused for
releasing him on bail against the judgment and order dated 4.8.2008
passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Sessions Court, Mehsana
in Special (ACB) Case No.4 of 2007 convicting the applicant and
sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each for
the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 1, 2, 3 and
13(2) and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the ofence under Section 7, in
default, further imprisonment of three months; and Rs.500/- each for
the offences punishabe under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 1, 2, 3 and
13(2), in default to under further imprisonment of one and half
months respectively under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and the sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently.

It
is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that during
the trial and even after the pronouncement of the judgment, the
applicant accused was on bail. Hence, same bail, fresh bond. This
application is allowed and Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct
service is permitted.

(M.D.Shah,
J.)

Sreeram.

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.149 seconds.