Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1006420/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10064 of 2008
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1160 of 2006
====================================================
KAILAS
CHAMPALAL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
====================================================
Appearance :
THROUGH
JAIL for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MR MENGDEY, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 05/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA)
Rule,
waived by ld.APP Mr.Mengdey. This application has been preferred by
the convict prisoner through jail to expedite the appeal or to
release him on regular bail or to release him on temporary bail.
2. The
present applicant has been convicted by the City Sessions Court, Fast
Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad on 22.09.2005 for the offence
punishable under section 304(1), and has been sentenced to undergo 10
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one
thousand only).
3. For
the grounds, the applicant has stated that he is a poor person and
the appeal has also been preferred by him through legal aid. In his
family, his wife and two minor children are facing dire financial
hardships, and by doing labour work, his wife is maintaining his
family. But, at present, his wife is also sick and is not able to do
the labour work, and, therefore, there is no one except the applicant
prisoner, to look-after his family, and hence, this application.
4. The
present applicant preferred an application under section 389(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, being Criminal Misc.Application
No.7106/2006, which came to be disposed of as not pressed by the
learned advocate for the applicant on 07.09.2006, and this Court
passed orders accordingly on the same date. There are no changed
circumstances, and, therefore, the question of granting regular bail
under section 389(1) would not arise. So far as expediting the appeal
is concerned, as it appears that still no paper-book is received from
the Trial Court, and the other accused who have filed their appeals
earlier to the present one and are still languishing in jail, and,
therefore, at present the relief of expediting the appeal also cannot
be granted to the applicant.
5. In
the same way, no grounds for temporary bail are made out, as the
grounds mentioned are too general, which are available to each
convict, who are not released on temporary bail. However, the present
applicant has filed Criminal Misc.Application No.5278/2008 to release
him on temporary bail, which was disposed of by this Court on
02.05.2008, in which the observation was that though the applicant
was released on furlough leave, nobody stood as surety of the
applicant, hence, he could not be released on furlough leave.
Therefore, vide order dated 02.05.2008, this Court had directed that
the applicant might submit a fresh application for releasing him on
furlough leave, and the same shall be considered afresh by the
concerned authorities. Ld.APP Mr.Mengdey submits that thereafter no
other fresh such application has been received by the authorities
from the applicant.
6. Under
the circumstances, as mentioned above, the application has no
substance, and the same stands dismissed. Rule discharged.
(J.R.
VORA, J.)
(J.C.
UPADHYAYA, J.)
(binoy)
Top