Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3611/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3611 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2003 of 2008
=================================================
RAMESH
@ BAVO @ RAJU SHRIBUDDHIRAM - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
THROUGH
JAIL for Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr.J.K. SHAH, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
Date
: 31/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
The
present application is filed through Jail praying for 45 days
temporary bail so as to see that he is able to undertake engagement
ceremony of his daughter.
2. The
applicant- convict is undergoing life imprisonment for offence under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.244 of 2006
by judgment and order dated 6th
May 2008. He was arrested on 21st
November 2005. By now he has undergone 5 years, 3 months and 19 days
in Jail. He is not able to enjoy furlough as the District
Superintendent of Police, Alwar sent a negative opinion. Learned APP
Mr.Shah made available for perusal communication
dated 2nd
December 2010 from the District Superintendent of Police, Alwar. It
is addressed to the Deputy Superintendent, Ahmedabad Central Prison.
The contents of that letter shows the extent of non application of
mind with which this letter is written. The inquiry was about the
convict being at his native. As the convict had stated that he wants
to be at his village so as to arrange for the required treatment of
his wife. The District Superintendent of Police, Alwar made inquiry
at Police Station, ‘Mandavar’, District Alwar. The inquiry was made
at the Village of the convict and as it is stated in the letter, ‘the
statements of certain persons were recorded’. The letter does not
refer to the contents of the statements. However, it proceeds to
state that,
“The
convict is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail for an
offence of murder, that the victim-party is resident of Ahmedabad and
if the convict is allowed to be on parole any untoward incident can
take place, and its possibility cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it
is not appropriate to release the convict on parole.”
3. What
is important is that there is clear non application of mind. The
convict is going to be at his Village Mandavar, District Alwar, that
being so, where is the question of his committing any untoward act at
Ahmedabad. Inquiry from the District Superintendent
of Police, Alwar was about his presence in Village, the victim-party
is not from the same village and therefore, there is no question of
his creating any problem in his village.
4. There
is another communication dated 1st
November 2010 from the Deputy Police Commissioner, Zone-V, Ahmedabad
City addressed to the Inspector General of Prisons, Ahmedabad wherein
it is stated that one of the co-accused of the convict (Ketan Alias
Lalo Maheshbhai Panchal) is absconding after he was released on
furlough. The letter then proceeds to state that, ‘if the convict is
released on furlough there is a likelihood of breach of peace and of
absconding’. Again without ascertaining whether the convict is going
to stay at Ahmedabad on his release on furlough or parole or
temporary bail this opinion is given.
5. In
view of the contents of the application and in light of the fact that
since 2005 till date he has not gone out of Jail the application
requires to be considered favourably. Only because one of the
co-accused, who has absconded after he was granted furlough since
19th
August 2008, cannot disentitle the present applicant of going on
temporary bail for the engagement of his daughter. The Court also
perused the letters written by the convict’s daughter which are
enclosed to the application which are dated 6th
July 2010 and 6th
September 2010. The daughter has written
in the letter that elder brother and younger brother of the convict
are also not supporting the family of the convict.
6. Learned
APP Mr.Shah made available for perusal further communications dated
16th
March 2011 and 23rd
March 2011 which are sent to to the Superintendent of Police, Alwar,
Rajasthan. It is really painful that the Superintendent of Police,
Alwar has not shown courtesy of replying these two communications.
It is expected from the member of uniform-force that he should
honour a communication received and he must reply the same.
Director
General of Police is requested to take up the matter with the
Director General of Police, Rajasthan to whom also these two
communications were sent for information.
7. RULE.
Mr.J.K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
8. Taking into
consideration the contents of the application the record of the
convict and the facts narrated hereinabove, the convict is ordered to
be released on temporary bail for 30 (thirty) days from
the date of his release subject to the following conditions:
The applicant-
convict shall execute a personal bond of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five
thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Jail authorities.
The applicant-
convict shall furnish his full and correct address of his proposed
stay during the temporary bail period.
The applicant-
convict shall report to the nearest Police Station on every Monday
between 08.00 AM and 12.00 Noon.
The applicant
shall surrender himself to the Jail authorities on expiry of the
above temporary bail period.
9. The
application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The Registry is
directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of
Police and also give a copy of this order to the learned APP.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
(P.P.
BHATT, J.)
karim
Top