Gujarat High Court High Court

Govindbhai vs State on 11 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai vs State on 11 February, 2011
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1831/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1831 of 2011
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 222 of 2009
 

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

 

GOVINDBHAI
ATIYABHAI VASAVA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MATAFER R PANDE for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR. DABHI, APP, for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 11/02/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)

1. Rule.

Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, appears and waives service of rule on behalf
of the respondent State of Gujarat.

2. Having
regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for
hearing today.

3. By
filing instant application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the applicant-convict prisoner, who, by judgement and
order dated 13.1.2009 rendered in Sessions Case No. 274 of 2007 by
learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Surat, has been convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years,
has prayed for suspension of sentence and to enlarge him on regular
bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered
Criminal Appeal.

4. At
the time of hearing of the application, Mr. Pandey, learned advocate
for the applicant does not press the application and seeks leave to
withdraw the same.

5. Mr.

Dabhi, learned APP, has no objection if leave as prayed for is
granted.

6. Hence
leave to withdraw the application is granted. The application stands
rejected as withdrawn.

7. Rule
is discharged.

(A.M. KAPADIA, J)

(BANKIM N. MEHTA, J)

(pkn)

   

Top