Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/14080/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14080 of 2010
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
JITENDRABHAI
JAGABHAI SHEKHDA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR HL JANI,
LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
VIKESH GAJJAR FOR M/S S G ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 20/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present application, the applicant-State has prayed to cancel
the order dated 21st
September 2010 granting regular bail passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, 6th
Fast Track Court, Gondal in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.357 of 2010 to the respondent-accused.
Heard
Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
applicant-State and Mr.Vikesh Gajjar for S.G. Associates.
Mr.
Jani has read the contention of the First Information Report and
vehemently argued that this is a serious case and even prima-facie
the case was established beyond reasonable doubt against the
respondent-accused before the learned Judge. He has also contended
that the role of the respondent-accused is also established beyond
reasonable doubt. Mr.Jani has also read the order passed by the
learned Judge and contended that without considering the documentary
evidence
produced before him, the learned Judge has passed the impugned
order. He, therefore, contended that the order passed by the learned
Judge is required to be cancelled and the respondent-accused may be
directed to surrender himself.
Mr.Gajjar
has contended that presence of the present respondent is not
established beyond reasonable doubt. He has also read the order
passed by the learned Judge and argued that the role of the present
respondent is not established. He has also contended that after
considering all the evidence produced before him, the learned Judge
has passed the order. There is no reason for the applicant to say
that the order passed by the learned Judge is not as per the
provisions of the law. He, therefore, contended that the present
application is required to be rejected.
I
have gone through the papers produced before me as well as
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I have
also perused the order passed by the learned Judge.
Without
entering into the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that there
is nothing in the application to cancel the bail granted to the
respondent-accused. 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