Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/296/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 296 of 2010
=========================================================
RAMANBHAI
BHOLIDAS PATEL & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YOGESH LAKHANI, SR. ADV. WITH MR ASHISH M DAGLI
for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS CM SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 08/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioners
are shown as accused Nos.7 and 8 in Sessions Case No.437/06. In the
said case, they filed application Ex.102 stating that if they are
charged jointly with accused Nos.1 to 6, the same is likely to
result into injustice to them. They, therefore, prayed that they
should not be charged jointly with the other accused.
This
application Ex.102 came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Judge by
his impugned order dated 10th May 2010.
Counsel
for the petitioners submitted that in the office of the petitioners
firing had taken place which led to filing of complaint by a staff
member of the petitioners. The petitioners in any case therefore
cannot be charged for offence under section 307 and other connected
offences, which accused Nos.1 to 6 are alleged to have committed.
He further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is
that the petitioners by not revealing full information to the
Investigating Agency committed various offences punishable under
sections 201, 202, 212, etc. of the Indian Penal Code, under no
circumstances, the petitioners can be proceeded against for the
alleged incident of firing. He, therefore, submitted that the
petitioners cannot be charged for the same offence which accused
Nos.1 to 6 have been stated to have committed as per the
chargesheet.
At
this stage, I do not propose to make any conclusive observations on
the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners simply because the
Trial Court is yet to frame charges against all the accused.
Particularly in view of the statement of the counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners do not oppose joint trial, the
entire question would boil down to the nature of charges the
Sessions Court may frame. At this stage, when the charges are yet
to be framed, the apprehension of the petitioners is premature. It
is clarified that at the time of framing charges, the contention of
the petitioners that no charge under section 307 of IPC and connected
provisions can be framed against them shall be borne in mind and the
charge shall be framed unmindful of the observations made in the
impugned order.
With
the above observations, the petition is disposed of at this stage.
It is, however, clarified that I have expressed no opinion on the
rival contentions.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top