Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/15275/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 15275 of 2010
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
MOHMMED
HANIF @ ANNUBHAI ABDULBHAI SHEIKH & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Applicant(s) :
1,
MR.FAIYAZ I SHAIKH for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 21/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present application, the applicant-State of Gujarat has inter
alia prayed to cancel the order of granting regular bail to the
respondents-accused vide order dated 15th April 2010
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.18,
Ahmedabad City in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1266 of
2010.
Heard
Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.Faiyazi
Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents-accused.
Mr.Faiyazi
Shaikh produced on record order dated 01st November 2010
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16,
Ahmedabad whereby the condition No.6 i.e. “applicants are
directed to mark their presence before the concerned Police Station
till the trial is over” imposed
by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.18, Ahmedabad is deleted and exempted the
respondent No.1-Mohammed Hanif @ Annubhai Abdulbhai Sheikh from
marking his presence on every 5th day of the calendar
month.
In
view of order dated 01st November 2010 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad produced
on record by Mr.Shaikh, Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, does not press the present application qua the
respondent No.1- Mohammed Hanif @ Annubhai Abdulbhai Sheikh.
In
view of above, present application is disposed of as not pressed qua
respondent No.1- Mohmmed Hanif @ Annubhai Abdulbhai Sheikh. Rule is
discharged qua respondent No.1.
Mr.Jani,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has contended that the the
respondent No.2 was released on regular bail by the learned trial
Judge on several conditions, one of which is “applicants
are directed to mark their presence before the concerned Police
Station till the trial is over”. He
has further contended that despite the condition imposed upon him,
the present respondent No.2 has never bothered to mark his presence
before the concerned Police Station till today. Mr.Jani has also
contended that the respondent No.2 is involved in a serious offence
punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 149, 323, 324, 294(B) of
the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police
Act. Mr.Jani has contended that to maintain law and order situation
and to secure his presence
at the time of trial, the said condition is imposed upon the
respondent No.2, but respondent No.2 has never bothered to follow
the condition imposed upon him. He, therefore, contended that the
order dated 15th
April 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.18, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1266
of 2010 is required to be cancelled qua the respondent No.2.
Mr.
Faiyazi Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents-accused, has
contended that it is true that respondent No.2 has never appeared
before the concerned Police Station as per the condition imposed
upon him. He has also contended that at the same time it is also
true that the respondent No.2 is not involved in any other offence
till date. Mr.Shaikh has also contended that the respondent No.2 is
regularly appearing before the trial Court. He, therefore, contended
that some lenient view is required to be taken and the present
application is required to be dismissed.
I
have gone through the papers produced before me as well as
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I have
also gone through the order passed by the learned trial Judge.
Looking
to the papers, it appears that while enlarging the respondent
No.2-accused on bail, certain conditions were imposed upon him by
the learned trial Judge and the respondent No.2-accused has never
bothered to follow the same.
It also appears from the order dated 01st
November 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.16, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.3689 of 2010, application filed by the respondent No.2 for
exemption from marking presence is rejected. Looking to the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel, it appears that the
respondent No.2 has never marked his presence before the concerned
Police Station. It also appears from the papers that the respondent
No.2 is involved in a serious offence punishable under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code and he is a head strong person. Hence, I
pass following order:
“order
dated 15th April 2010 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.18, Ahmedabad City in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.1266 of 2010 is hereby cancelled and set
aside qua respondent No.2-Mohmmed Imran Mohmmed Hanif Sheikh.
Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to surrender himself immediately
before the Police Authority.”
In
view of above observations, present application is partly allowed.
Rule is made absolute qua respondent No.2.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top