Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
State vs Rajendrabhai on 4 March, 2010
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/387/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 387 of 2010
 

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


 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

RAJENDRABHAI
MANHARLAL JOSHI - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
Mr.
K.L.Pandya, Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Applicant. 
 
========================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 04/03/2010 

 

 
 
					ORAL
ORDER

The
State of Gujarat has filed this application for cancellation of bail
granted to the respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court no. 3, Vadodara vide order
dated 28th October, 2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
1452 of 2009, in connection with the offence registered with Raopura
Police Station I-Cr. No. 204 of 2009 for the offences punishable
under sections 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2.
Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.L.Pandya for the
applicant State. He has vehemently argued that from the contents of
the FIR it appears that the Police Inspector, ACB police station has
filed the complaint and during the investigation of the concerned
case, some document was found from the possession of the accused and
during the interrogation it was found by Police Inspector, ACB that
some documents were notarised by the respondent-original accused. It
is the say of the prosecution that the present respondent-accused who
is a practising lawyer and notary is also involved in the case of
forged documents. The prosecution had opposed the anticipatory bail
application of the respondent, however the lower court has granted
anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused. Therefore, the
anticipatory bail granted to the respondent accused should be
cancelled.

3.
Today, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued
that the respondent-accused is a practising advocate and Notary and
he cannot disobey the provisions of law. But the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor is unable to show from the record as to what type
of role the respondent-accused has played in the alleged offence. It
appears that during his official duty as a Notary, the
respondent-accused has notarised some documents which were brought
before him.

4.
I have perused the reasons given by the learned trial Court while
granting anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to convince this Court as to
what is the illegality committed by the trial Court while granting
anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused. In my view, no
illegality has been committed by the trial court in passing the
impugned order. I am in full agreement with the reasons assigned by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I do not find any substance in
this application. The Application has no merit and is hereby
dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(Z.K.Saiyed,J)

***vcdarji

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

89 queries in 0.153 seconds.