Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7378/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7378 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6167 of 2009
=========================================================
SHAILESH
KANTILAL THAKKAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
EKANT G AHUJA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LB DABHI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 19/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Mr. L.B. Dabhi, Ld. APP waives service of rule for the respondent
State.
2. Heard
Ld. Advocate Mr. E G Ahuja for the applicant and Ld. APP Mr. Dabhi
for the respondent State.
3. This
Court vide order dated 21/5/2009 in Criminal Misc. Application No.
6167 of 2009 released the applicant on regular bail by imposing
certain conditions. Condition [e] runs as under :
[e]
not leave the local limits of State of Gujarat without the prior
permission of the concerned Sessions Judge.
Condition
[f] runs as under :
[f] mark
presence before concerned Police Station on 15th day of
every English calendar month, any time between 9.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m
till commencement of trial
4. Ld.
Advocate Mr. Ahuja for the applicant submitted that in the instant
case the investigation is over and the police has filed charge-sheet
on 5/5/2010. It is further submitted that for the deletion of the
aforesaid two conditions the applicant had filed Criminal Misc.
Application No. 13532 of 2009. However, at that time, the
investigation was in progress and the charge-sheet was not filed and,
therefore, on 4/12/2009 said application was not pressed and
accordingly said application stood disposed of as not pressed. It is
submitted that now charge-sheet is filed and the investigation is
over. The applicant on account of his business, has to go on and
often out of Gujarat and, therefore, it is requested that condition
[e] mentioned above may be deleted.
4.1. So
far as the condition [f] regarding marking of presence before
concerned police station is concerned, the said condition is valid
only till commencement of the trial. In that view of the matter, Ld.
Advocate Mr. Ahuja for the applicant submits that he does not press
the deletion of said condition at this stage.
5. Ld.
APP Mr. Dabhi for the respondent State opposed this application.
6. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the
offences alleged against the applicant, I am of the considered
opinion that condition [e] should not be deleted. However condition
[e] requires to be suitably modified.
7. In
that view of the matter, so far as the condition [e] is concerned,
the applicant is required to obtain prior permission of the concerned
Sessions Judge before leaving the territory of India.
8. For
the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed in part. Condition
[e] set forth in the order dated 21/5/2009 in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 6167/2009 now reads as under :
[e] not
to leave the local limits of India without the prior permission of
the concerned Sessions Judge.
9. In
the result, the application is allowed in part. Condition [e] set
forth in the order dated 21/5/2009 in Criminal Misc. Application No.
6167/2009 shall be now read as under :
[e] not
to leave the local limits of India without the prior permission of
the concerned Sessions Judge.
No
order regarding the deletion of condition [f] is required to be
passed since the application regarding the deletion of said condition
is not pressed.
Rule
made absolute accordingly. D S P.
[
J.C. UPADHYAYA, J. ]
*
Pansala.
Top