Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5058/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5058 of 2011
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
DADBHAI
TAPUBHAI VALA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR KARTIK PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 21/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
The
present application has been filed by the applicant-State under Sec.
439(2) read with sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
cancellation of bail granted to the respondents-accused as per the
order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 557 of 2010 by the
Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2011 on the grounds
stated in the Memo of the petition.
2. Learned
APP Mr. Kartik Pandya ha stated that the offence is under sec. 302 of
IPC and all the accused including the present applicants-accused have
been attributed with the role and they have indiscriminately
assaulted the deceased and therefore the present application may be
allowed.
3. Though
the submissions have been made, as can be seen from the impugned
order passed by the Sessions Court itself, the investigation is over
and the weapon which has been recovered from the respondents accused
does not have any bloodstains matching with the blood group of the
deceased as per the FSL report. Further, it is a case of
cross-complaint.
4. Therefore,
having regard to the facts and also considering the guidelines with
regard to cancellation of bail, the court is not inclined to
entertain the present application.
5. It
is well-settled that the criteria for grant of bail and cancellation
of bail are different. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment in the
case of Savitri Agarwal and ors. v. State of Maharashtra and anr.,
reported in (2009) 8 SCC 325, has observed that the
criteria/parameters for cancellation of bail are different than grant
of bail and cogent and convincing circumstances are necessary for
directing cancellation of bail already granted. In the case of
Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2008
SC 2318, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters for
cancellation of bail observing that the criteria for cancellation of
bail is more stringent and unless necessary ingredients or parameters
are fulfilled, the bail cannot be cancelled.
6. Therefore,
considering these aspects the court is not inclined to entertain the
present application and the same deserves to be rejected and
accordingly stands rejected. Rule is discharged.
(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)
(hn)
Top