Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2051/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC. APPLICATION No.2051 of 2006
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No.1367 of 1999
==============================================================
RAJU
@ RAJESH BACHUBHAI - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & ANR. - Respondents
==============================================================
Appearance
:
THROUGH
JAIL for
Applicants.
MR RC KODEKAR, APP for
Respondents.
=====================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA
Date
: 01/03/2006
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)
Rule.
Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service
of notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the facts
of the case, the application is heard today.
2. By forwarding this application
through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Baroda, the prisoner, i.e.
Rajubai Bachubhai Solanki undergoing sentence of R.I. for life and
fine of Rs.5000/-, in default R.I. for one year, for commission of
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, has prayed to enlarge him
on temporary bail for a period of forty-five days to enable him to
attend marriage of his brother Vinod, which is scheduled to take
place on March 2, 2006.
3. Heard the learned counsel of the
respondents. In support of the averments made in the application, the
prisoner has produced marriage invitation card for perusal of the
Court. On scrutiny of the same, this Court finds that there are
several over-writings in the said invitation card, which are not
explained by the convict at all. In fact, initially, the name of the
convict was mentioned in the said card as Rajeshbhai Bharatbhai and
the same was thereafter amended to read Rajeshbhai Bachubhai. Further
the dates of Ganesh-Sthapan, Mandap-Muharat, Grah-Shanti, dinner,
etc. are also overwritten. The marriage invitation card produced by
the prisoner along with his application does not inspire confidence
of the Court and, therefore, it is difficult for the Court to act
upon the same. Further, the prisoner was recently released on
furlough leave for fourteen days from January 10, 2006 and January
23, 2006. Having regard to the facts, this Court is of the opinion
that no good ground is made out by the prisoner to enlarge him on
temporary bail and, therefore, the application is liable to be
dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, the application fails and is dismissed. Rule
is discharged.
(J.M.Panchal,
J.)
(J.R.Vora,
J.)
Rajendra
Top