Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/15086/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 15086 of 2010
=========================================
DHARMENDRA
@ DHAMO POPATBHAI SANGHANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance:
MR
HARDIK A DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR SANDEEP R LIMBANI for Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr
Kartik Pandya, Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 15/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER1. This
application filed under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 is preferred by the applicant who is an accused in connection
with FIR registered being 1-CR No. 65 of 2009 with Kalavad police
station for the offences punishable under sections 364, 365, 302, 201
and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
2. Mr
H.A. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that
the involvement of the applicant is only on the basis of statement of
the co-accused and nothing is recovered or discovered and in
absence of any other material in the charge sheet connecting
the applicant-accused with the crime and the other co-accused are
enlarged by the court concerned, the applicant may also be enlarged
on bail.
3. Learned
APP submits that considering the nature of the offence and the
applicant being the main accused at whose behest the conspiracy was
hatched and ultimately offence under section 302 of the IPC was
registered. It is further submitted that certain statements of the
witnesses including one Chhaganbhai Khatrani who has stated that
the applicant had played an overt-act. Besides, considering the
injuries found on the body and other attending circumstances, the
applicant may not be enlarged on bail.
4. Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances, prima facie, it appears that the applicant was one
of the conspirators and in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched, the
victim was done to death. It further transpires that certain mobile
calls including the call received by the present applicant from
other co-accused, statement of Chhaganbhai and
other attending circumstances along with recovery of the cash amount
would certainly go against the present applicant and the prosecution
has made out a good case and rest of the things will be the subject
matter of the trial.
5. In
view of the aforesaid, no case is made out to grant bail to the
applicant. The application is accordingly rejected.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
msp
  Â
Top