Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/606/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 606 of 2006
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 320 of 2002
==============================================================
FAIJMOHMED
SHAKURKHAN - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
==============================================================
Appearance
:
THROUGH
JAIL for Applicant()
: 1,MR NK MAJMUDAR for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KT DAVE, ADDL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Respondents
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 13/02/2006
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)
Rule.
Mr.K.T.Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of
notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the facts of
the case, the application is heard today.
2. By
forwarding this application through the Superintendent, Central Jail,
Baroda, the prisoner i.e. Faizmohmed Shakurkhan Qureshi, undergoing
sentence of R.I. for 12 years and fine of Rs. 2 Lakhs, in default,
R.I. for four years, for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 18 & 21 of the N.D.P.S.Act, 1985, has prayed that
Criminal Appeal No.320 of 2002 filed by him, be heard immediately, or
in the alternative, he be enlarged on regular bail during the
pendency and final disposal of the appeal filed by him.
3. Heard
the learned advocate of the respondents. The Court is informed by the
Court Officer that Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2002 filed by the
prisoner was listed at serial No.9 on final hearing board dated
December 6, 2005. The Court is further informed that now the appeal
filed by the convict is listed at serial No.35 on final hearing board
dated January 9, 2006, and that the convict is being represented by
his learned lawyer Mr.N.K.Majmudar. The Court is inclined to give
priority to the convict in the matter of hearing of his appeal
provided his learned counsel is ready to argue the case. Therefore,
the prayer made by the convict that his appeal be heard immediately
cannot be entertained and is liable to be refused.
4. As
far as prayer for bail is concerned, the Court finds that appeal
filed by the prisoner was listed for admission hearing before
Division Bench comprising A.L.Dave and Akshay Mehta,JJ., and that the
Court had admitted the appeal by order dated December 17, 2002;
whereas the prayer for bail was rejected as not pressed. The record
shows that on August 2, 1998, the convict was found in possession of
2 Kilograms and 100 Grams of opium, without pass or permit. Having
regard to the manner in which the incident had taken place and the
nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the
provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.Act, this Court is of the
opinion that prayer for bail cannot be granted and is liable to be
refused.
For
the foregoing reasons, the application fails and is rejected. Rule is
discharged.
[J.M.PANCHAL,J.]
[
H.B.ANTANI,J.]
(patel)
Top