Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Maheshbhai on 17 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
State vs Maheshbhai on 17 January, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/9703/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9703 of 2010
 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

MAHESHBHAI
JAVRABHAI BARIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Applicant(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

Date
: 17/01/2011
 

ORAL
ORDER

By
way of present application the applicant-State has challenged the
order dated 26th May 2010 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Revision Application
No.26 of 2010 whereby the respondents-accused were granted regular
bail.

Heard
Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
applicant-State. Mr.Jani has contended that under Section 397 of the
Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has allowed the application and
both the respondents-accused were released on bail. He has also
contended that both the respondents-accused are involved in a
serious offence of gang rape. He has also contended that without
application of mind the learned Judge has allowed the application
and released the respondents-accused on bail. He, therefore,
contended that the order dated 26th May 2010 passed by
the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside and the
respondents-accused may be directed to surrender themselves.

I
have gone through the papers produced before me as well as
submissions advanced by Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor. I have also perused the order passed by the learned
Judge.

Though
the respondents-accused were served, they are not present before the
Court personally or through advocate. It appears from the papers
that between the period 13th January 2010 and 14th
February 2010 respondents-accused were not produced before the lower
Court and they are illegally detained by the investigating agency.
It also appears from the papers that the investigating agency was
totally negligent and due to the fault of the investigating agency,
the said application was allowed by the learned Judge. The learned
Judge has observed every aspect of the matter and thereafter passed
the order.

In
view of above observations, I am of the opinion that present
application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

(Z.

K. Saiyed, J)

Anup

   

Top