Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/12096/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12096 of 2010
=========================================================
MOHAMMED
BILAL ALLAHRAKHA SHAIKH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SD SUTHAR for MR NK MAJMUDAR
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KP RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 29/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail by the applicant, who came to be
arrested in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No. I – 1 of
2010 with DCB Police Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
This
is a successive bail application. Earlier, the applicant had
preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 3257 of 2010 through
Advocate Mr. Sikander Saiyed. The matter was argued at length and the
same was rejected by a speaking order dated 26.04.2010. Thereafter
the applicant has preferred the present application through another
advocate.
In
the order dated 26.04.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.
3257 of 2010 this Court has observed as under:
“I
have considered the role attributed to the applicant which is
reflected in the F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application. I have
carefully taken into consideration the panchama of muddamal articles
seized by the investigating agency, F.S.L. report, statement of
witnesses and other material produced for my perusal. The applicant
along with the other accused was found in possession of gas cutter
and other instrument used for the purpose of changing the number
plates and tampering with the chasis number in garage. The F.S.L.
report mentions tampering with chasis number and number plates of the
vehicles. Thus, considering the role attributed to the applicant,
nature of offence, manner in which the offence is committed by the
applicant along with the other accused, provisions of Sections 406,
467, 471, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and quantum of
punishment etc., I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled
to claim discretionary relief, as prayed for in the application.
The
above application was also filed after filing of the charge sheet.
The only subsequent change sought to be pressed into service by the
applicant is that a co-accused has been enlarged on bail by this
Court, vide order dated 21.09.2010 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 8605 of 2010. The same cannot be said to be a
subsequent change, much less a substantial change.
In
the circumstances, there is no merit in the application. The
application deserves to be rejected, and is hereby rejected.
mathew [H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
Top