Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA/10359/2011 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 10359 of 2011 ========================================================= RAZAK @ BHURIYO @ PORIYO USMANKHAN POLADI PATHAN & 2 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ADIL MEHTA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. MRS. MANISHA L. SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 22/07/2011 ORAL ORDER
application is preferred against a well reasoned and considered
order passed by the Trial Court denying bail in exercise of powers
u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the
Code’) to the accused who is involved in
connection with First Information Report registered as I-C.R.
No.20/2011 with Sector 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar for the
offences punishable u/s. 323, 342, 364(A), 365, 387, 395, 504,
506(2) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, u/s. 25(1)B.A. of the
Arms Act and u/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Counsel Mr. Adil Mehta appearing for the applicant would submit that
the case of prosecution falls apart on the ground that the
identification parade held by the investigating agency is farce and
the manner in which the identification parade is held would not
reveal an iota of material implicating the applicant accused with
the crime. Besides, some statements recorded about the incidents of
crime are also based on methods adopted by the police authority. It
is submitted that considering overall aspects, by imposing strict
conditions, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
have considered the papers submitted alongwith this application
including the chargesheet and the order passed by the Trial Court in
which the following aspects about the antecedents have been noticed
which are re-produced as under :-
No. and Section
No.190/06 u/s. 302, 396, 397, 427 and 120B of IPC and Section
135 of B.P. Act.
No.91/07 u/s. 224, 225 of IPC.
No.288/10 u/s. 395, 427 of IPC.
No.5/11 u/s. 506(2), 114 of IPC.
No.54/03, u/s. 342, 323, 504, 506(2) of IPC and Section 25 of
No.47/03 u/s. 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act.
No.46/05 u/s. 142 of IPC.
No.101/10 u/s. 279 of IPC.
No.8/11 u/s. 395, 504, 506(2) of IPC and u/s. 135 of the B.P.
Act and u/s. 25 of the Arms Act.
No.226/10 u/s. 392 of IPC.
No.217/09 u/s. 224, 225 of IPC.
the above aspect, it is well settled that discretion is to be used
with regard to circumstances and in the present case, the applicant
who is having criminal antecedents for crime of serious offences
punishable under the Indian Penal Code, I am not inclined to
exercise powers u/s. 439 of the Code. Hence, this application
stands rejected with no order as to costs.
S. Dave, J.)