Gujarat High Court High Court

Pratapbhai vs State on 6 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Pratapbhai vs State on 6 August, 2010
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8506/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8506 of 2010
 

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

PRATAPBHAI
VALAMBHAI KATARA & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR IM
PANDYA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR AJ DESAI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
=========================================
 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

Date
: 06/08/2010
 

ORAL
ORDER

Heard
Mr.I.M. Pandya, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.A.J.
Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.

Mr.Pandya
does not press the present application for applicant no.1 –
Pratapbhai Valambhai Katara.

In
view of submission made by Mr.Pandya, present application is
dismissed qua applicant no.1.

This
application is filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for releasing them on regular bail in
connection with the offences registered at CR No.I-42 of 2010
registered with Bakor Police Station, District-Panchmahal, for the
offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.

Mr.Pandya
has contended that the applicant no.2 Sujiben Valambhai Katara
is mother-in-law of the deceased. He has also contended that
applicant no.2 is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has
also contended that the applicant no.2 is the old aged lady and is
not keeping well. He read the order passed by the trial Court and
prayed to release the applicant no.2 on regular bail.

As
against this, Mr.Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has
strongly opposed the present application and read the order passed
by the trial Court.

I
have gone through the order passed by the trial Court as well as
papers produced on record of the case. Looking to the allegations
levelled against the applicants, I am inclined to release the
applicant no.2 on regular bail.

Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for reasoned order.

Considering
the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed
and applicant no.2 is ordered to be released on bail in connection
with CR No.I-42 of 2010 registered with Bakor Police Station,
District-Panchmahal, for the offences alleged against her in this
application on her executing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the conditions that
she shall,

(I) not
take undue advantage of her liberty or abuse her liberty;

(ii) not
act in a manner injurious to the prosecution;

(iii) not
leave the local limits of State of Gujarat without the prior
permission of the concerned Sessions Judge;

(iv) Surrender
her passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;

The
Authority will release the applicant no.2 only if she is not
required in connection with any other offence for the time being.

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.

Bail
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to
try the case.

At
the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the
observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage,
made by this Court while enlarging the applicant no.2 on bail. So
far as applicant no.1 is concerned, Rule is discharged. So far as
applicant no.2 is concerned, Rule is made absolute.

Direct
Service is permitted.

(Z.

K. Saiyed, J)

Anup

   

Top