Gujarat High Court High Court

Criminal Misc.Application No. … vs Mr Nm Kapadia For Petitioner No on 2 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Criminal Misc.Application No. … vs Mr Nm Kapadia For Petitioner No on 2 August, 2011
Author: J.M.Panchal, Honourable J.R.Vora,
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD



     CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No 9751 of 2001


             in


     CRIMINAL APPEALNo 958        of 1996




     --------------------------------------------------------------
     DILDARKHAN BAALDARKHAN PATHAN
Versus
     STATE OF GUJARAT
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Appearance:
     1. Criminal Misc.Application No. 9751 of 2001
          THROUGH JAIL for Petitioner No. 1
          MR NM KAPADIA for Petitioner No. 1
          MS NANDINI JOSHI, APP for Respondents


     --------------------------------------------------------------


                  CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
                                     and
                          MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA


                  Date of Order: 11/01/2002


ORAL ORDER

(Per : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)

Rule. Ms. Nandini Joshi, learned A.P.P. waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of the opponents.
Having regard to the facts of the case, the application
is heard today.

2.By submitting this application through Jail
Superintendent, Central Jail, Baroda, prisoner i.e.
Dildarkhan Baldarkhan Pathan, who is undergoing sentence
of life imprisonment at Central Jail,Baroda, has prayed
to enlarge him on regular bail during the pendency and
final hearing of the appeal filed by him.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the State
Government. The record of the case shows that the prayer
made by the convict for regular bail was rejected by the
Division Bench while admitting his appeal. Further, we
find that the prayer for regular bail made by the convict
in Misc. Criminal Application No. 7218/2001 was
rejected by the Division Bench comprising R.K.Abichandani
& D.K.Trivedi, JJ. vide order dated October 8, 2001.
The convict has failed to point out any change in
circumstances so as to enable him to claim the same
relief again. Therefore, the application cannot be
entertained and is liable to be rejected.

For the foregoing reasons, the application fails
and is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(J.M.Panchal,J.)

( J.R.Vora, J.)

(patel)