Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/8680/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH 1`COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8680 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1502 of 2009
=========================================================
GOPAL
@ GOPI HARMANBHAI CHAUHAN - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
THROUGH
JAIL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS MINI NAIR, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 09/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
Rule.
Ms.Mini Nair, learned APP, appears and waives service of notice of
Rule on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.
Having
regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for
hearing today.
The
applicant – convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order
dated 30.6.2009 rendered in Sessions Case No.1 of 2009 by the
Additional Sessions Court, Anand has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 etc. IPC and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life, has filed this application through the jail
authority, praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for 30 days, to
enable him to cultivate his land during this monsoon season.
Heard
Ms.Mini Nair, learned APP, for the respondent – State of
Gujarat. We have gone through the application and the supporting
documents that form part of the application. We have also gone
through the jail remarks sheet forwarded by the jail authority along
with the application.
Upon
perusal of the jail remarks sheet, we find that the applicant has
undergone total period of 1 year, 4 months and 10 days
imprisonment. He is also undergoing sentence for non-payment of
maintenance to his wife. Upon perusal of the Panipatrak i.e. 7/12
extract, it is seen that the agricultural land stands in the name of
7 co-owners, including the applicant. Therefore, according to us,
other co-owners can definitely cultivate the land and his presence
is not required for the said purpose. In view of this, applicant has
not made out any case for grant of temporary bail to enable him to
cultivate his land.
For
the foregoing reasons, the application fails and accordingly it is
rejected.
Rule
is discharged.
(A.M.KAPADIA,
J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top