Gujarat High Court High Court

Mangal vs State on 26 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Mangal vs State on 26 August, 2010
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/9813/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9813 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 971 of 2010
 

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

 

MANGAL
KISHANSING RAJPUT (CHAUHAN) - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
RM CHAUHAN for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR AR CHAUHAN for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR LB DABHI,
APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

 


 

Date
: 26/08/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

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

Rule.

1. Mr.

L.B. Dabhi, Ld. APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the opponent – State.

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 [2] of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (‘Cr. P.C.’ for short), the applicant – convict
prisoner, who vide
judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 39/2008 dated
26/3/2010, by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer,
F.T.C. No. 3, Rajkot at Morbi, by which the applicant has been
convicted
for the offence under sections 304 Part-I, etc. of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of
Rs.3,000/-, in default of fine, RI of 3 months, has prayed for
suspension of sentence and to enlarge him on regular bail during
pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal, on
the grounds stated in the application.

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

5. Mr.

L.B. Dabhi, Ld. APP has no objection if leave as prayed for is
granted.

6. Hence,
leave to withdraw the application is granted. Resultantly the
application is rejected as withdrawn.

7. Rule
is discharged.

(A.M.KAPADIA,
J.)

(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)

*
Pansala.

   

Top