Gujarat High Court High Court

Dinesh vs State on 28 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Dinesh vs State on 28 July, 2010
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/6570/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6570 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 566 of 2010
 

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


 

DINESH
RAMANLAL SHAH - PRISONER NO.D-6504 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=====================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
AFTABHUSEN ANSARI for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR HL JANI ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2 - 3. 
=====================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 28/07/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

This
application has been filed by the applicant for the following prayers
:

(b) YOUR
LORDSHIP MAY BE pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
produce the order allowing furlough leave to the applicant and
connecting other papers.

(c)
YOUR LORDSHIP MAY BE pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to produce
the order invoking Section 268 of the Code, 1973 to the applicant.

(d)
YOUR LORDSHIP MAY BE pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to
revoke the order invoking Section 268 of Criminal Procedure Code, for
the furlough period and further respondents may be directed to comply
with the order of this Honourable Court dated 04.05.2010
(ANNEXURE-A).

I
have perused the communication of the Under Secretary, Home
Department, Gujarat State, dated 17.7.2010 produced by the learned
APP Mr. H.L.Jani. I have perused the communication dated 3.7.2010 by
Section Officer, Home Department. It appears from the papers and
above communications, I have not found any substance in this
application. Even the learned advocate for the applicant is not
present and therefore, it also appears that he is not interesting to
proceed with the matter. Hence, the application is dismissed. Rule is
discharged.

(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)

ynvyas

   

Top