Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2899/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2899 of
2010
=================================================
SANJAY
RAMANBHAI DANTANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR PN BAVISHI for Applicant(s)
: 1,
MR DC SEJPAL ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 16/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
is an application preferred by the applicant under section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who is apprehending his arrest
in connection with I-C.R.No.654 of 2009 for the offence punishable
under sections 457, 380 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned
advocate for the applicant submitted that applicant is an innocent
person and he has not committed offence as alleged in the First
Information Report. Learned advocate for the applicant placing
reliance on First Information Report submitted that name of the
applicant does not even figure in the First Information Report. The
name of the applicant was given by the co-accused and on the basis
of statement of the co-accused, applicant is sought to be involved
in the offence punishable under sections 457, 380 and 114 of Indian
Penal Code. Considering the role attributed to the applicant, he
deserves to be granted anticipatory bail as prayed in the
application.
Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.D.C.Sejpal representing the State
while opposing the bail submitted that applicant is involved in the
offence punishable under sections 457, 380 and 114 of Indian Penal
Code. There are two criminal antecedents against the applicant. The
amount of theft is to the tune of Rs.26,700/- and gold articles,
mobile and case is involved. Mobile is recovered as on today.
Considering the role attributed to the applicant and the statement
of the co-accused, no discretionary relief be granted to the
applicant and the application deserves to be rejected out of hand.
Heard
learned advocate Mr.H.B.Raval for the applicant and Mr.D.C.Sejpal,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State at length and in
great detail.
I have considered the
role attributed to the applicant as reflected in First Information
Report at Annexure-A as well as police papers. The criminal
antecedents as referred to by learned APP cannot be overlooked by
this Court while considering the application under section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is facing charge for
offences punishable under sections 457, 380 and 114 of Indian Penal
Code. The amount in question which is involved in the present case
is Rs.26,700/-, gold article, mobile etc. Mobile is seized from the
possession of the applicant. Considering the role of the applicant
and the manner in which offence committed by the applicant, he is
not entitled to claim relief as prayed for in the application under
section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. I am also aware of
the fact that powers under section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised
in rare and exceptional cases and case of the applicant does not
fall under those exceptional cases.
For
the forgoing reasons, there is no merits in the application and it
is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(H.B.ANTANI,
J.)
Amit/-
Top