Devaraj vs State on 14 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Devaraj vs State on 14 February, 2011
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1792/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1792 of 2011
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 8 of 2008
 

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

 

DEVARAJ
SHYAMRAJ - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
THROUGH
JAIL for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR. KODEKAR, APP, for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None
for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/02/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)

1. Rule.

Mr. Kodekar, learned APP, appears and waives service of rule on
behalf of the respondent State of Gujarat.

2. Having
regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for
hearing today.

3. By
filing instant application through jail authority, the applicant has
prayed to release him on temporary bail for a period of 20 days to
enable him to engage private advocate instead of advocate engaged by
the the Legal Aid Committee to defend his case in Criminal Appeal No.
8 of 2008 filed by him which is pending for final hearing.

4. Having
considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Kodekar, learned APP for
the respondent State of Gujarat and upon perusal of the averments
made in the application so also jail remark sheet, we have noted that
the applicant has enjoyed one furlough leave in the recent past i.e.
in October-November, 2010 for a period of 28 days. Therefore, he
could have engaged private advocate to defend his case during that
period. However, he failed to engage private advocate during that
period.

5. In
view of the above, we are not inclined to release the
applicant-convict on temporary bail on the ground stated by him in
the application.

6. Seen
in the above context, the application lacks merit and deserves to be
rejected.

7. For
the foregoing reasons, the application fails and it is rejected
accordingly.

8. Rule
is discharged.

(A.M. KAPADIA, J)

(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J)

(pkn)

   

Top

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *