Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2976/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2976 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 500 of 2010
=========================================================
SAHEBEALAM
@ BADE ABDUL KHALIK RANGREJ & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
SHILPA R SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR HH PARIKH APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 09/04/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
Heard
learned advocate Ms Shah for the applicants and learned APP Mr Parikh
for the respondent State.
2. Ms
Shah has taken us through those pieces of evidence which are
relevant, according to her, particularly, the evidence of PW-1, PW-4,
PW-5 and the Doctor’s evidence. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 claim to be the
eye-witnesses. PW-1 and PW-4 have not supported the prosecution case
and they do not speak of presence of PW-5. Ms Shah, therefore,
contended that presence of PW-5 may be treated as doubtful. The
prosecution case hangs mainly on evidence of PW-5 and, therefore,
would call for a close scrutiny. Ms Shah submitted further that PW-5
in his evidence has indicated that they saw the accused persons
walking down to the place, whereas as per the other evidence of the
prosecution, the accused persons came to the spot on a motor-cycle.
Apart from that, according to Ms Shah, PW-5 has improved and
exaggerated the version while deposing before the Court and the
version given by him while giving the statement. PW-5 has not given
the names of the assailants nor details about the incident while
giving history to the Doctor. Ms Shah submitted that the evidence led
by the prosecution becomes doubtful on positioning of the assailants
and the victim considering the entry and exit wounds caused by the
pallets or bullets. The evidence of the eye-witnesses could be
disproved in light of this medical evidence. She, therefore,
submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be
suspended and the applicants be admitted to bail pending the appeal.
3. The
application is opposed by the learned APP.
4. All
the arguments canvassed by Ms Shah relate to the merits of the case
and call for appreciation of evidence, which can be done at the final
hearing stage of the appeal and not at this stage of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail. It would otherwise result into preempting
the decision in the appeal. The applicants were not on bail during
the trial. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain
this application.
5. Incidentally,
the jail report indicates that the applicant No.2 is involved in as
many as six other cases, one of which relates to the offence under
the Arms Act. Two offences are punishable under Section 332 of IPC
whereas the other offences are under the Prisons Act and Section 188
of IPC. The conduct of the applicants is reported to be bad in the
prison. The chances of the applicants getting involved in the other
offence after being released on bail following suspension of sentence
cannot be ruled out and, therefore, also this Court is of the view
that no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
6. The
application, therefore, stands rejected. Notice is discharged.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.)
(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J.)
zgs/-
Top