Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Krunalsinh on 24 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
State vs Krunalsinh on 24 February, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/15279/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 15279 of 2010
 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

KRUNALSINH
VIKRAMSINH RATHOD - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR
HEMANT B RAVAL for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

Date
: 24/02/2011
 

ORAL
ORDER

By
way of present application the applicant-State has inter alia prayed
to cancel the bail granted to the respondent-accused vide order
dated 09th June 2010 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Ahmedabad City in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.1864 of 2010.

Heard
Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.Hemant
Raval, learned counsel for the respondent.

Mr.Jani
has contended that certain conditions were imposed upon the
respondent-accused while he was enlarged on bail, one of which is to
mark his presence at the concerned police station on every 5th
of English calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. till the
charge-sheet is filed. Mr.Jani has further contended that the
respondent-accused was never bothered to mark his presence before
the concerned Police Station as directed by the learned trial Judge
in his order dated 09th June 2010 and therefore, order
granting bail to the respondent-accused is required to be cancelled.

As
against this, Mr.Raval has contended that it is true that
respondent-accused has never marked his presence before the
concerned Police Station. Mr.Raval has made a statement at the Bar
that the respondent-accused had never marked his presence before the
concerned Police Station because he is externee. He has also
contended that externment order was passed against the
respondent-accused and therefore, he has not marked his presence
before the concerned Police Station. He, therefore, requested this
Court that applicant may be permitted to mark his presence before
Tahera Police Station, Godhra.

I
have perused the papers produced before me as well as submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the
facts, more particularly statement made by Mr.Hemant Raval, learned
counsel for the respondent-accused, I am of the opinion that this is
not a fit case to cancel the bail. In view of statement made by
Mr.Hemant Raval, present respondent-accused is hereby directed to
mark his presence before Tahera Police Station, Godhra on every 5th
day of English calendar month between 10.00 a.m and 2.00 p.m. till
the charge-sheet is filed. Other conditions mentioned in the order
dated 09th June 2010 passed by the earned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Ahmedabad City in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.1864 of 2010 remain unaltered. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.

Direct
Service is permitted.

(Z.

K. Saiyed, J)

Anup

   

Top