Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1211/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1211 of 2010
=========================================================
DHANSUKHBHAI
@ DHANIYO VANUBHAI KOMLI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MOUSAM R YAGNIK for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS KRINA P CALLA, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 22/02/2010
ORAL ORDER
1. This
is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by the applicant who has been arrested in connection with
CR No. I 89 of 2009 registered at Bharuch Rural Police Station for
the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e) and 81 of
the Bombay Prohibition Act. In the facts and circumstances of the
case and by consent of both the sides, this application is taken up
for hearing today.
2. Learned
advocate Mr MR Yagnik for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is an innocent person and false case is foisted on him. Considering
the role attributed to the applicant which can be seen from the FIR
at Annexure-A to the petition, the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on
the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.12370
of 2009 dated 27.11.2009 (Coram: R.H.Shukla, J.) and submitted that
considering the aforesaid aspects, since the main culprit is already
enlarged on bail, the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail
even on the ground of parity and the prayer as set out in the
application be granted.
3. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms Krina P Calla for the State, while
opposing the bail application, submitted that considering the role
attributed to the applicant and the manner in which the offence is
committed by the applicant along with the other accused, no
discretionary relief be granted to the applicant and the application
deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have
heard learned advocate Mr MR Yagnik for the applicant and learned
APP, Ms Krina P Calla for the State at length and in great detail.
Considering the role attributed to the applicant as reflected in the
FIR at Annexure-A to the petition, provisions of Sections 465, 467,
468, 471 and 114 of the IPC read with Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e) and
81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, quantum of punishment and since the
co-accused is already enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
27.11.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.12370 of 2009, I
am of the view that the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
5. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and
the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with CR
No. I 89 of 2009 registered at Bharuch Rural Police Station on
executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and
subject to the conditions that he shall:
[a] not
take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;
[b] not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender
his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;
[d] not
leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the
Sessions court concerned;
[e] mark
his presence at the concerned Police Station on any day of every
first week of English calendar month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM.
till the trial is over;
[f] furnish
the present address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his
residence without prior permission of this Court;
[g] maintain
law and order.
6. If
breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions
Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate
action in the matter.
7. Bail
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try
the case.
8. At the
trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of
preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this
Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
9. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct
Service is permitted.
[H.B.
Antani, J.]
mrpandya
Top