Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10107/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10107 of 2009
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
MAYURBHAI
PURSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR RC KODEKAR, ADDL.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Applicant(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Respondent(s)
: 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 31/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
present application has been filed by the applicant State for
cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent-original accused
as per the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City
Sessions Court No. 9, Ahmedabad below Exh. 1 in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 2028 of 2009 dated 13.7.2009.
2. Learned
APP Mr. Kodekar referred to the impugned order particularly
emphasising the observation in para 5 and 6 and submitted that the
papers are not seen. He therefore submitted that the court was
required to consider the relevant material and in the circumstances
the present application may be allowed and the order granting bail
may be set aside.
3. As
it transpires from the material, the incident regarding suicide
occurred as the deceased was heavily indebted after borrowing from
different persons. It is well settled that to attract an offence
under sec. 306, necessary ingredients for the offence regarding
abetment of suicide has to be fulfilled and the basic constituents of
the offence under sec. 306 like the intention of the accused to aid
and instigate for commission of the offence/suicide is required to be
considered. Therefore, as the court is not required to appreciate
and scrutinize in detail this aspect of the evidence and considering
the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the bail has been
granted on irrelevant consideration or material and relevant factors
are not appreciated.
4. Further,
it is well accepted by catena of judicial pronouncements that
parameters for cancellation of bail are different and the court has
to be cautious while entertaining such application.
5. Therefore,
as it is not shown that any irrelevant material has been considered
or material evidence has not been considered while granting bail, the
present application deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands
rejected. Rule is discharged.
(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)
(hn)
Top