Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2281/2010 3/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2281 of 2010
=========================================================
RATILAL
MAGANLAL CHAUHAN & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YASH N NANAVATY for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR DC SEJPAL APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 26/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This application is
preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
seeking regular bail by the applicants, who have been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R.No.I-11 of 2010 with Devgadh
Bariya Police Station, Dahod for the offence punishable under
Sections 379, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 7
of the Essential Commodities Act, Sections 3, 15(2) of the Petroleum
and Mineral Pipeline Act and Sections 3 and 7 of the Damage of Public
Property Act read with Section 23 of the Petroleum Act, 1934.
2. Learned advocate
Mr.Y.N. Nanavaty for the applicants submitted
that the applicants were working as security guard and save and
except the aforesaid role, no other role is attributed to them in the
alleged commission of offence. Considering
the role attributed to the applicants which is reflected in the
F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application, they deserve to be enlarged
on bail.
3. Learned
A.P.P. Mr.D.C. Sejpal, representing the respondent-State, while
opposing the bail application, submitted that the applicants, along
with the main culprit, are involved in the alleged offence.
Considering the role attributed to the applicants and the manner in
which the offence is committed by them along with the other accused,
no discretionary relief be granted to them and the application be
dismissed.
4. I
have heard learned advocate Mr.Y.N. Nanavaty for the applicants and
learned A.P.P. Mr.D.C. Sejpal for the respondent-State at length and
in great detail. I have considered the rival submissions and the role
attributed to the applicants which is reflected in the F.I.R. at
Annexure A to the application. The applicants were working as
security guard and save and except the aforesaid role, no other role
is attributed to them. Considering the aforesaid aspect, provisions
of Sections 379, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3
and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Sections 3, 15(2) of the
Petroleum and Mineral Pipeline Act and Sections 3 and 7 of the Damage
of Public Property Act read with Section 23 of the Petroleum Act,
1934, police papers and quantum of punishment etc., I am of the view
that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is
allowed and the applicants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in
connection with C.R.No.I-11 of 2010 registered with Devgadh Bariya
Police Station, Dahod on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each [Rupees
ten thousand only] with one surety each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to the conditions that
they shall:
[a] not take undue
advantage of their liberty or abuse their liberty;
[b] not act in a manner
injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender their
passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;
[d] not leave the State
of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;
[e] mark their presence
at the concerned police station on any day of first week of every
English calendar month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM. till the trial is
over;
[f] furnish the present
address of their residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the
time of execution of the bond and shall not change their residence
without prior permission of this Court;
[g] maintain law and
order.
6. If breach of any of
the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will
be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate action in the matter.
7. Bail bond to be
executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
8. 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 applicants on bail.
9. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(H.B.
Antani, J.)
Hitesh
Top