Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/12507/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12507 of 2011
=========================================
SOLANKI
MAFATLAL BHIKHABHAI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR MAULIK NANAVATI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 07/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present application, filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to release them
on anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.I-160 of 2011
registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence
punishable under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A, 294-B and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Heard
Mr.P.P. Majmudar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Maulik
Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
Mr.Majmudar
has contended that the applicants are absolutely innocent persons
and have not committed any offence. He has contended that the
applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. He
has also contended that the applicants are falsely implicated in the
present case. He has also contended that the applicants are senior
citizens and they will co-operate with the investigation. He has
also contended that husband and brother-in-law of the deceased are
already granted anticipatory bail by this Court and other co-accused
have also been granted anticipatory bail by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar and therefore, on the ground of parity
also, present applicants are required to be released on anticipatory
bail. He, therefore, contended that looking to the overall facts of
the case, present applicants may be released on anticipatory bail.
Mr.Nanavati,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the
present application and contended that because of cruelty meted out
by the applicants, the deceased died an unnatural death. He,
therefore, contended that present application deserves to be
dismissed.
Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused papers
produced before me. It appears from the papers that specific role is
attributed to the applicants. It appears from the dying declaration
that the applicants are the abater and due to their instigation,
deceased has committed suicide. I have also perused provisions of
Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code and from the
ingredient of the said provisions, prima-facie it is established
that the applicants are involved in this case. It also appears from
the papers that applicant No.1 abused the deceased by specifically
saying that she should not come back.
In
view of above, present application deserves to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top