Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Indrajit on 24 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Indrajit on 24 December, 2010
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/14162/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14162 of 2010
 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

INDRAJIT
AMARSINH RAOL - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
HH PARIKH, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Applicant(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR YM THAKKAR for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

Date
: 24/12/2010
 

ORAL
ORDER

By
way of present application the applicant-State has challenged the
order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused vide its
order dated 21st July 2010 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.494 of 2010.

Heard
Mr.H.H. Parikh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of applicant-State. He has contended that the learned Judge
has passed the order without appreciating the facts of the case and
material produced on record. He has also contended that the order
passed by the learned Judge is not legal and proper. He has also
contended that the learned Judge has committed grave error in
enlarging the respondent-accused on bail. He has also contended that
still detail investigation is required to be made and therefore, at
this stage enlarging the respondent-accused on anticipatory bail
would adverse the case of the prosecution. He, therefore, contended
that the order passed by the learned Judge is required to be quashed
and set aside.

I
have perused the papers produced before me as well as submissions
advanced by Mr.Parikh. I have also perused the order passed by the
learned Judge. It appears from the papers that complaint was lodged
after the order passed by this Court in a petition directing the
Collector to make inquiry. It also appears from the papers that the
learned Judge has passed the order after taking into consideration
the evidence produced on record.

In
view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is nothing in
matter to entertain. I have not found any substance in the present
application. Hence, the present application deserves to be dismissed
and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(Z.

K. Saiyed, J)

Anup

   

Top