Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/13118/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13118 of 2011
=========================================================
GIRISH
@ GOPAL HEMRAJ THACKER - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DILIP P JOSHI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KL PANDYA, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 04/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
applicant has filed this application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for
enlarging him on regular bail, in connection with CR No. I –
179 of 2010 registered with Adipur Police Station, Dist. Kutch, for
the offences under Section 489(A),(B),(C) and (D) read with Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard
learned Advocates for the respective parties.
Learned
Advocate for the applicant has contended that the applicant is
innocent and he is not involved in the alleged commission of
offence. He has contended that on the basis of statement of
co-accused Raimal @ Viro Rabari, the name of the applicant is
mentioned and thereafter second search was carried out by the
Investigating Agency. He has contended that the statement of
co-accused cannot be considered against the present applicant. He
has contended that the applicant is the resident of Gandhidham and
his address is wrongly shown by the Investigating Agency. He has
contended that simply on the statement of co-accused, the applicant
is wrongly booked in the commission of offence. Learned Advocate has
contended that now the charge-sheet is filed and, therefore, there
is no question of tampering any evidence by the applicant.
Learned
APP has contended that, on the information received by the Police
from the co-accused Raymalbhai, second search was carried out and
the Muddamal was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He
has contended that the co-accused has stated before the Police that
the present applicant is also connected in the said offence at a
particular place. He, therefore, contended that looking to the facts
of the case and, prima-facie, involvement of the applicant in the
commission of offence, this Court may not entertain this
application.
Heard
both the parties. I have also perused the papers produced before me.
It clearly appears from the statement of co-accused Raymal, second
search was carried out by the Investigating Agency and the Muddamal
was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Prima-facie, it
shows that there was agreement of present applicant with co-accused
Raymal. Therefore, prima facie, meeting of mind is established
against the present applicant. I am of the opinion that the
statement of co-conspirator can be admissible against co-conspirator
in light of the definition of criminal conspiracy. This is a case of
criminal conspiracy and, prima facie, I am of the opinion that there
is involvement of the applicant in the present matter. Therefore,
this is a fit case to reject the application and, therefore, I do
not deem it proper to entertain this application, filed by the
applicant.
In
view of above, this application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
sas
Top