Gujarat High Court High Court

Udaybhanu vs Amarnath on 17 June, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Udaybhanu vs Amarnath on 17 June, 2010
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/2198/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2198 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5378 of 2008
 

In
 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1429 of 2008
 

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


 

UDAYBHANU
SHRINAGU CHAUHAN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

AMARNATH
RAMASHANKER CHAUHAN & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=======================================================
Appearance : 
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR MM SAIYED for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR UA
TRIVEDI APP for Respondent(s) :
2, 
======================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/06/2010
 

ORAL
ORDER

Heard
party-in-person viz., Udaybhanu Shrinagu Chauhan and also perused the
papers. Learned counsel, Mr.M.M. Saiyed appears for the respondent
no.1-original accused and learned A.P.P., Mr.U.A. Trivedi appears for
the respondent no.2-State.

Present
application has been filed by the party-in-person for cancellation of
bail granted to the respondent no.1-original accused as per the order
passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No.5378/2008 in Criminal Appeal No.1429/2008 dated 08.05.2008.
While releasing on bail, one of the conditions imposed was that he
shall not indulge in any criminal activity. Thereafter, it appears
that there was some complaint for the breach of Condition No.5, for
which, the applicant-party-in-person had earlier moved Criminal
Misc. Application No.9436/2009, wherein the Court had passed
an order dated 26.11.2009, at that time, the learned advocate,
Mr.Saiyed made a statement that the residence has been changed and in
the present application, the address is different than what it was in
that application. However, there is also reference made with regard
to complaint before the Magistrate and the applicant-party-in-person
has produced application dated 20.03.2009 as well as application
dated 01.02.2010 stating that she has gone away to UP.

Be
that as it may, learned A.P.P. is directed to take instruction with
regard to pendency of the application before the Executive Magistrate
and the breach of condition, if any, and submit report on the
returnable date, on the basis of which, further order would be
passed.

Matter
stands over to 1st July, 2010.

(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)

/patil

   

Top