Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/95/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 95 of 2010
=========================================================
VANDITABEN
WD/O BHARATBHAI DALABHAI TAVIYAD - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS.KHUSHBOO
V MALKAN for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR UA TRIVEDI, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 18/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
present application has been filed by the applicant-orig.complainant
for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2-orig.accused by
the Sessions Court, Dahod passed in Criminal Misc.Application No. 26
of 2010 vide order dated 19.1.2010 on the grounds set out in the
application.
2. Though
this matter has been called out repeatedly, no one has remained
present. It appears that the learned advocate is not interested in
proceeding with the matter. However, it transpires from the record
that respondent No.2 – orig.accused has been released on bail
by the Sessions Court, Dahod as per the order dated 19.1.2010 taking
the reason that she is a female and also the role attributed is
concerned. Reference is also made to Section 437 of Cr.PC stating
that the charge sheet has now been framed. It is this order which
has been challenged in this application.
3. It
is well accepted that the parameters for cancellation of bail are
more stringent than for grant of bail. Before such discretion can be
exercised, the Court has to be cautious and has to verify whether
the trial Court, while granting bail, has considered irrelevant
material or aspect and has to consider whether the same is overlooked
or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be
said that such irrelevant aspects have been considered by the trial
Court. Therefore, without any further elaboration, considering the
well accepted criteria for cancellation of bail, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the present
application deserves to be rejected and accordingly it stands
rejected. Rule is discharged.
(Rajesh
H.Shukla, J.)
Sreeram.
Top