Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1386/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1386 of 2010
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
DILIPKUMAR
DHANSUKHLAL MEHTA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UA TRIVEDI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
HARDIK A DAVE for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 26/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
State
has filed this application against the order dated 15th
January 2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.2294 of 2009 granting anticipatory bail
to the respondent-accused.
Originally,
criminal complaint was registered against the respondent-accused
with Varacha Police Station at I-C.R. No.395 of 2009 for the
offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code.
Apprehending
his arrest, the respondent-accused preferred application for
anticipatory bail before the learned 3rd Additional
District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, which came to
be allowed by order dated 15th January 2010.
Heard
Mr. U.A. Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the
applicant-State. He has contended that looking to the age of the
respondent-accused and prosecutrix, anticipatory bail is not
required to be granted to the respondent-accused. He has also
contended that looking to the medical certificate, aspect of
committing rape cannot be discarded and, therefore, when prima-facie
case is made out against the respondent-accused, anticipatory bail
is not required to be granted to the respondent-accused. He has
contended that without considering the seriousness of the offence,
the learned Judge has used his discretionary power in favour of the
respondent-accused and, therefore, bail granted to the
respondent-accused is required to be cancelled.
I
have gone through the papers produced before me and also gone
through the order passed by the Trial Court. Today Mr. Trivedi is
unable to convince this Court that on which ground the bail granted
to the respondent-accused can be cancelled. It also appears that the
present respondent-accused is a government servant. His presence
during the trial is not doubted by the applicant.
In
view of above, in my opinion, no case is made out by the applicant
to cancel the bail granted to the respondent-accused by the learned
3rd Additional District Judge and Additional Sessions
Judge, Surat and, therefore, no interference is required to be
called for by this Court. I have not found any substance in the
present application. In view of above, the application is dismissed
hereby. Rule is discharged.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top