Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4534/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4534 of 2010
=========================================================
MAHEBOOB
GANI KATARIA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HH PARIKH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 12/05/2010
ORAL ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr Majmudar for the applicant, learned APP Mr Parikh
for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr Hriday Buch, who
appears for the complainant through the learned APP.
2. The
applicant had earlier applied for bail by preferring Criminal Misc.
Application No.569 of 2010 which was withdrawn by him on 1.2.2010.
3. Now,
the applicant is relying on the order dated 16.4.2010 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No.756 of 2010 whereby co-accused,
Nuruddin Rajabali Chavda, came to be admitted to bail by this Court.
4. Learned
advocate for the applicant submitted that the role of Nuruddin and
the present applicant is identical, as is revealed from the
investigation papers and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to
bail on the ground of parity.
5. The
application is opposed to on the ground that though the role of the
applicant may appear to be similar to that of Nuruddin, his
subsequent conduct of abscondence would differentiate his case from
the case of Nuruddin. The proceedings under Section 70 of Cr. PC
were required to be initiated and only thereafter the applicant
surrendered. It is indicated that though the applicant was indicated
to be not in town, the details collected from mobile phone service
provider indicates that the applicant’s phone was within the vicinity
of the area where the incident occurred. The applicant has hatched a
conspiracy and, last but not the least, it is indicated that the
trial is now fixed for hearing on 19.5.2010.
6. Having
regard to the rival side submissions, this Court is of the view that
though the role of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused
Nuruddin, his conduct would also be relevant for considering the
question of bail. If he has absconded once prior to his surrender,
possibility of his abscondence subsequently, cannot be ruled out,
particularly when the trial is fixed and, in such an eventuality, it
may obstruct the process of law. It was indicated by the learned
advocate for the applicant that the applicant was granted temporary
bail for two days subsequent to his withdrawal of the application and
he surrendered in time. This is countered by the other side that the
applicant was not granted temporary bail, but he was sent under
police escort. In such an eventuality, this Court is of the view that
the applicant’s case does not merit acceptance on the ground of
parity. Stands rejected. Rule is discharged.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
zgs/-
Top