Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1057/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1057 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1069 of 2007
=========================================================
RAVINDRA
BANSIDHAR BEHRA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SADHANA SAGAR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR. DABHI, APP, for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 07/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
1. Rule.
Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent State of Gujarat.
2. Having
regard to the facts of the case, this application is taken up for
hearing today.
3. The
applicant convict-prisoner who vide judgement and order dated
30.6.2007 rendered in N.D.P.S. Case No. 2 of 2005 by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, has been convicted for the offences
under Section 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
for both the aforesaid offences, has filed this Criminal
Miscellaneous Application praying for suspension of sentence and to
release him on bail during the pendency and final hearing of the
above numbered Criminal Appeal.
4. We
have considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Sadhana Sagar for the
applicant and Mr. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of
Gujarat. We have also perused the averments made in the application
so also the impugned judgement and order and the evidence.
5. It
may be noted that this being successive bail application, no ground
is made out to persuade us to reconsider the prayer for bail. The
contention that the applicant has undergone more than 50% of the
tenure of the total imprisonment is no ground to release the
applicant on bail. It is also required to be noted that the above
numbered Criminal Appeal is listed for final hearing. In view of
this, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence and release the
applicant on bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above
numbered Criminal Appeal.
6. Seen
in the above, the application lacks merit and it deserves to be
rejected. The application is rejected accordingly.
7. Rule
is discharged.
(A.M.
KAPADIA, J)
(BANKIM N. MEHTA, J)
(pkn)
Top