Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/15787/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 15787 of 2010
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
MUKESH
RAJABHAI VAGHERA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR HL
JANI, APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR PREMAL S RACHH for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 03/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
State of Gujarat has filed this application for cancellation of bail
granted to the respondent – accused, vide order dated
15.9.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamnagar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 464 of 2010.
Heard
learned APP Mr. Jani for the applicant – State and the learned
Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent – accused.
Learned
APP has contended that the present respondent and others were
arrested for the offence punishable under Section 306, 498(A) and
114 of I.P. Code. Learned APP has contended that the ground on which
the bail is granted is totally baseless. He has contended that the
learned Judge has ignored the seriousness of the crime in question
as the accused were involved in hatching the conspiracy for killing
the victim and were arrested with the weapons. He has contended that
the investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency, the
statement of witnesses were recorded and the muddamal was also
seized and Ravangi Nodh was prepared regarding the muddamal sent to
the Forensic Science Laboratory. He has contended that this is a
serious offence and due to the negligent act on the part of the
investigating agency the respondents – accused were released
on bail. This is an offence against the woman and such offence
should be required to be viewed seriously. He has contended that
when there is direct evidence found against the accused then in that
case, bail should not have been granted by the trial Court.
I
have gone through the papers produced before me and the case diary
of the Investigating Officer. I have also heard learned Advocate for
the respondent – accused.
The
Investigating Officer, who is also present in the Court, has fairly
admitted that he has committed some mistakes, which is not malafide,
but it is bonafide mistake, and due to such bonafide msitake, he
could not file the charge-sheet in time. Investigating Officer has
also submitted that as he was busy with some other work, he could
not send the Ravangi Nodh to the Forensic Science Laboratory, in
time.
On
perusal of the order of the learned Judge, it appears that the
learned Judge has not committed any error in enlarging the
respondent – accused on regular bail. Therefore, I am not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Court.
Hence, this application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
sas
Top