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


Gujarat High Court
Suleman vs State on 17 November, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/13880/2011	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13880 of 2011
 

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


 

SULEMAN
MOD SAMA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

======================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
JAYESH A DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MS CM SHAH ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1, 
======================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

		Date
: 17/11/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

The
applicant has preferred this application, under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, for enlarging him on bail in connection
with the offence being CR No. I-13 of 2011 registered with Khavda
Police Station, Bhuj, for the offence u/ss. 406, 409, 465, 467, 468,
471 and 120(b) of Indian Penal Code.

Learned
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant has contended that
the applicant is Postmaster and he is an innocent person. He further
submitted that he has been wrongly arraigned in the case of the
prosecution. He also submitted that the complaint is filed after a
belated stage with a view to involve the applicant in the commission
of the offence. Even from the bare reading of the FIR, there is no
role attributed to the applicant. The applicant prepared bills only
and thereafter, the TDO has verified the same and signed and
thereafter, payments were made to the concerned person. He has also
contended that now the charge-sheet is filed and, therefore, there
is no question of tampering with any evidence by the applicant. He
also submitted that co-accused has been released by this Court.

Learned
APP Ms. Shah for the State strongly opposed the bail application of
the applicant and submitted that considering the seriousness of the
offence, the applicant is not required to be granted regular bail.

Having
heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the
allegations levelled against the applicant are not prima facie
established except negligence on his part and co-accused has been
released by this Court and the fact that now the charge-sheet is
filed and, therefore, without entering into the merits of the
matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Both the
learned Advocates do not press for reasoned order.

Considering
the above, this Application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to
be released on bail in connection with CR No. I-13 of 2011
registered with Khavda Police Station, for the offence alleged
against him in this application on his executing a Bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject
to the conditions that he shall –

a) not
take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;

b) not
to try to tamper or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or
complainant in any manner;

c) maintain
law and order and should cooperate the Investigating Officers;

d) not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

e) not
leave the State of Gujarat till the disposal of Sessions case
without the prior permission of the concerned Sessions Judge.

f) furnish
address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the
time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence
without prior permission of this Court;

g) surrender
his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week.

5. If
breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned
Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate
action in the matter.

6. Bail
before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would
be open to the trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the
solvency certificate if prayed for.

7. Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)

ynvyas

   

Top


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

114 queries in 0.419 seconds.