Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/11717/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11717 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 537 of 2010
=========================================================
SURESHGIRI
MANGAGIRI GOSWAMI & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PREMAL S RACHH for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR MAULIK NANAVATI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 08/09/2011
ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP Mr. Maulik Nanavati waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent – State.
The
applicants have filed this application for modification and/or
deletion of conditions, being conditions No.”8(d)” &
“8(e)”, of bail order dated 4.3.2010 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 537 of 2010.
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. P.S.Rachh for the applicants and learned APP
for the respondent – State.
So far as condition
No.”8(d)” is concerned, he has contended that the
applicants are presently residing at Kutch. The applicants are
permanent residents of Village : Paatvagam, Taluka, Jetaran, Dist.
Pali, Rajasthan. He has contended that the applicants have their
families at Rajasthan. So far as Condition No.”8(e)” is
concerned, he has contended that the applicants have been released
on bail by order dated 4.3.2010 and since then, as per the
condition, they are regularly marking their presence before the
concerned Police Station. He has contended that the applicants were
serving at Chennai and their business is at Chennai. However,
because of condition No.8(e) the applicants are unable to attend
their business and thereby incurring huge loss and, therefore, it is
very difficult for them to remain present for marking their presence
at the police station. He has also assured this Court that the
applicant will remain present during the trial. He, therefore, prays
that the condition No. “8(e)” may be deleted.
Having
heard the learned advocates for the parties and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the
condition No. “8(d)” is required to be modified and
condition No.”8(e)” imposed by this Court is required to
be deleted.
Hence,
condition No. “8(d)”, viz. “not leave the State
of Gujarat without the prior permission of the Sessions Court
concerned”, imposed by this Court vide order dated
4.3.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.537 of 2010 is
modified to the extent, “not leave India without the prior
permission of the Sessions Court concerned”. So far as
condition No.8(e), viz. “mark their presence at the
concerned Police Station on any day of every first week of English
calender month between 9:00 AM and 2;00 PM. Till the trial is over”,
imposed by this Court vide order dated 4.3.2010 passed in Criminal
Misc. Application No.537 of 2010, is hereby deleted. Application is
allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
D.S. Permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
kks
Top