Veja vs State on 13 July, 2011

0
105
Gujarat High Court
Veja vs State on 13 July, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/5325/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5325 of 2011
 

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


 

VEJA
HAMIR @ POPATBHAI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR ND
NANAVATY Senior Advocate with MR HRIDAY BUCH for NANAVATY
ADVOCATES for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MS ML SHAH APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 13/07/201 

 

ORAL
ORDER

Learned
counsel appearing for the applicant submits that investigation
is over and charge sheet is filed. It is further submitted
that from the statements of [i] Abdul Sulemanbhai
Kathuria, [ii] Kesubhai Sulemanbhai Kathuria and [iii] Ranabhai
Karsanbhai and cross complaint filed, it reveals that father of the
applicant received knife injury and was treated as indoor patient
for few days. It is further submitted that in the backdrop of the
allegations levelled in the FIR, ingredients of offences under
section 302 of the IPC are not made out. It is submitted that
considering the nature of allegations and role attributed to the
applicant, by imposing suitable conditions, the applicant may be
enlarged on bail.

Heard
learned APP for the respondent – State.

Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and taking into consideration the facts that charge
sheet is filed, father of the applicant received knife injury
and was treated as indoor patient for few days, prima facie it
appears that ingredients of offences under section 302 of the IPC
are not made out at this stage. Therefore, without discussing the
evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to enlarge the
applicant on bail in connection with .R.No.I-34/2010 of Kalyanpur
Police Station, Dist. Jamnagar for the offences punishable under
sections 302, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, on furnishing
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and on
conditions that the applicant shall :

[a] not
take undue advantage of liberty or abuse liberty;

[b] not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] maintain
law and order;

[d] mark
presence before the concerned Police Station on every 1st
and 15th day of English Calender month between 11.00 a.m.
and 2 p.m for three months;

[e] not
leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions
Judge concerned;

[f] furnish
the address of residence at the time of execution of the bond and
shall not change the residence without prior permission of this
Court;

[g] surrender
passport, if any, to the Lower Court immediately;

[h] shall
not enter into city and district limits of Jamnagar for 3 months or
till commencement of trial, whichever is earlier, except for marking
presence.

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

At
the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the prima
facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant
on bail.

Bail
before the Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.

Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

[Anant
S. Dave, J.]

*pvv

   

Top

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *