Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Patel vs State on 29 January, 2010
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/150/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 150 of 2010
 

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


 

PATEL
BRIJESH NAVINBHAI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR NP
CHAUDHARY for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR HL JANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
=========================================
 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/01/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The present application
has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under sec.
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The applicant-accused is
charged with having committed offences under sections 395, 120(B) and
114 of IPC and sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act for which FIR, being
C.R. No. I-193/2009, has been registered with Mehsana City Police
Station, Dist. Mehsana.

3. Learned advocate Mr.
Chaudhary submitted that the applicant-accused is not involved as
stated in the FIR and also his name is not mentioned and the
specific role is not attributed. He submitted that at the most he is
said to have been at the downstairs and therefore there is no
identification or any other evidence suggesting his involvement. He
therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.

4. Learned APP Mr. Jani
resisted the application. He referred to the statement of the
witnesses and also the material and submitted that the charges are
for offence under sec. 120B also and there was a conspiracy hatched,
which prima facie suggests involvement of the applicant accused. He
submitted that the applicant accused was keeping a watch at the
downstairs with other co-accused when the alleged offence of robbery
was committed by the other co-accused. Therefore, learned APP Mr.
Jani submitted that the present application may not be allowed. He
referred to the statement of the father of the applicant accused
where he is said to have handed over the amount which was part of the
robbery. He therefore submitted that the present application may not
be entertained.

5. Having heard
learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary and learned APP Mr. Jani and having
regard to the nature of offence, the role attributed and also
considering the police papers and the other attending circumstances,
the court is of the opinion that the resent application deserves to
be allowed.

6. The application is
accordingly allowed. The applicant-accused PATEL
BRIJESH NAVINBHAI is ordered to be released on bail
in connection with C.R. No. I-193/2009 registered with Mehsana City
Police Station, Dist. Mehsana on his executing a personal bond of
Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court and subject to
the further conditions that he shall :

(a) not take undue advantage
of his liberty or abuse his liberty.

(b) not to try to tamper or
pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner;

(c ) not act in any manner
injurious to the interests of the prosecution.

(d) maintain law and order
and should co-operate with the investigating officers;

(e) mark his presence before
the concerned Police Station once in the first week of each calendar
month between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm till the trial commences.

(f) furnish the address of
his residence to the investigating officer and also to the court at
the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his residence
without prior permission of the court.

(g) surrender his passport,
if any, to the lower court, within a week.

(h) If there is any other
offence registered after this against the applicant accused, it will
be a ground for the I.O. to move for cancellation of the appeal.

7. If breach of any of the
above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge will be
free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

8. Bail before the lower
court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open to the
trial court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency
certificate, if prayed for.

Rule is made absolute.

D.S. permitted.

(Rajesh H. Shukla,
J.)

(hn)

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.175 seconds.