Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9417/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9417 of 2011
=========================================================
REKHABEN
DILIPBHAI CHOTHANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PM LAKHANI for
Applicant(s) : 1,MRS RP LAKHANI for Applicant(s) : 1,MSNEELAKLAKHANI
for Applicant(s) : 1,MR. MANOJ T DANAK for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL
JANI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 19/07/2011
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Mr.H.L.Jani,
learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent -State.
This application has been
preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
in connection with the offence being CR No.I-70 of 2010 registered
with Talala Police Station, for the offence under Sections 376, 506,
292 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Heard Mr.P.M.Lakhani,
learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP on
behalf of the respondent – State.
Mr.Lakhani contended that
applicant is a lady. He contended that age of the prosecutrix is
required to be considered at the time of bail. He contended that
looking to the allegations made the present applicant is wrongly
involved in the crime. He contended that from the contents of the
FIR it prima facie appears that concocted story is made out. He
further contended that looking to the circumstances of this case and
small kids of the present applicant she is required to be released
on bail.
Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP
read order of the lower Court and contended that looking to the
allegations made against the present applicant lenient view is not
required to be taken. He contended that her husband, who is the main
accused, has committed rape. He contended that looking to the
statement of prosecutrix prima facie role of present applicant is
established beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that applicant has
recorded videography. He has contended that it is a very serious
offence and looking to the seriousness of offence applicant is not
required to be enlarged on bail.
I
have gone through the papers produced before. I have also considered
submissions advanced by learned
advocates on both the sides. At the time of hearing of bail
application, the Court is required to see whether there is prima
facie involvement of the accused in commission of offence or not.
Looking to the papers produced before me, it is clearly established
that the applicant is involved in the offence alleged against her.
From perusal of the papers it appears that present applicant is lady
accused, but it is not a ground to consider bail in connection with
the serious offence committed by lady accused. From role attributed
to the present applicant it appears that she was present at the time
of incident of rape. She has also recorded videography. She has
committed very heinous crime. Looking to the evidence produced on
record this is not the case for bail.
In view of above
observations, this application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
(Z.
K. SAIYED, J)
kks
Top