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


Gujarat High Court
Dilipsinh vs State on 3 March, 2010
Author: H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1983/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1983 of 2010
 

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

 

DILIPSINH
JUJARSINH JADEJA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
TEJAS M BAROT for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR.D.C.SEJPAL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 03/03/2010 

 

 
 
					ORAL
ORDER

Rule.

Mr. D.C.Sejpal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service
of rule on behalf of respondent-State. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application
is taken up for hearing today.

This
application is preferred under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, seeking regular bail by the applicant who came to be
arrested in connection with I-C.R.-Prohibition No.6/2010 registered
with Santalpur Police Station, for the offence punishable under
Sections 66(B), 65(A)(E), 67(C), 116(B) and 81 of the Prohibition
Act and under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard,
Mr. Tejas M. Barot, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.
D.C.Sejpal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length and in
great detail. Considering the role attributed to the applicant which
is reflected in the FIR at Annexure-A to the application, provisions
of Sections 66(B), 65(A)(E), 67(C), 116(B) and
81 of the Prohibition Act and under Section 353 of the Indian Penal
Code, quantum of punishment etc., I am of the view that the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

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 I-C.R.-Prohibition No.6/2010 registered with Santalpur 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 first
week of every 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.

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.

Bail
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction
to try the case.

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.

Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.

(H.B.ANTANI,J.)

Girish

   

Top


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.182 seconds.