Gujarat High Court High Court

Sanjay vs State on 22 November, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Sanjay vs State on 22 November, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/13302/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13302 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 603 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

SANJAY
RAMDULARE CHAUHAN, THRO' SHANTIBEN RAMDULARE CHAUHAN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
HD RANA for
Applicant(s) : 1,MS MEENA VYAS for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR KL PANDYA,
APP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 22/11/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

Rule.

Learned APP Mr.K.L.Pandya waives service of notice of Rule for
opponent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard
learned advocate Ms.Meena Vyas for the applicant and learned APP
Mr.K.L.Pandya for the State and learned advocate Mr.Rupera for mother
of the deceased (victim).

3. It
is not in dispute that during the trial, the trial Court had ordered
to hand over the custody of the vehicle in question to the
applicant-Shantiben Chauhan upon certain conditions. It is also not
in dispute that after the custody of the vehicle was handed over to
the applicant – Shantiben, she has not misused the liberty
granted to her. The only objection is that the convict has not paid
the fine and the trial Court has also ordered to pay certain amount
of compensation to the mother of the victim. This question can be
finally decided only after the appeal is finally decided.

4. The
vehicle, if not handed over to the applicant, would deteriorate
during the pendency of appeal for no reason. Therefore, we are of the
view that since there is no allegation of misuse of the vehicle
during the trial when the vehicle in question was in the custody of
applicant, this application deserves to be allowed and the same is
allowed. The vehicle is ordered to be handed over to the applicant –
Shantiben during the pendency of the appeal on the same terms and
conditions as were imposed by the Sessions Court while handing over
the vehicle during the pendency of the trial. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

 

 


 

								(A.L.Dave,
J.)
 

 


 

Sreeram.							(V.M.Sahai,
J.)

    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top