Gujarat High Court High Court

Vipulbhai vs State on 24 November, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Vipulbhai vs State on 24 November, 2010
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/12872/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12872 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1770 of 2010
 

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

 

VIPULBHAI
RAVJIBHAI PADHIYAR & 3 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SK PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4. 
MR HL JANI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 24/11/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Rule.

Learned APP Mr.Jani waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent – State.

Heard
learned Counsel for the parties. The applicants have filed this
Criminal Misc. Application for enlarging them on bail by suspending
the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.219 of 2008, vide
Judgment and order dated 4.9.2010.

Learned
Advocate Mr. Patel has contended that he is not pressing the bail for
applicant No.1 – Vipulbhai Ravjibhai Padhiyar. Hence, this
application is dismissed in so far as applicant No.1 is concerned.

In
so far as applicant No.2 is concerned, it is contended by Mr. Patel
that the applicant No.2 is an old man and head of the family. There
is nobody to look after the family and the applicants No.3 & 4,
being ladies, they may be enlarged on bail pending the hearing and
final disposal of the above Appeal. Mr. Patel has also contended that
the applicants have also paid the amount of fine imposed by the
learned Judge.

Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that
the applicant Nos.2 to 4 are required to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly,
this application is allowed in so far as applicant Nos.2, 3 & 4
are concerned. The order of sentence passed by the learned Judge is
hereby suspended in so far as applicants No.2 to 4 are concerned and
the applicants No.2, 3 & 4 are ordered to be enlarged on bail,
pending the hearing and final disposal of the above appeal, on they
executing personal Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)
each with one surety of like amount and on usual terms and
conditions. Bail before the trial Court.

Rule
is discharged in so far as applicant No.1 – Vipulbhai Ravjibhai
Padhiyar, is concerned and Rule is made absolute in so far as
applicants No.2, 3 & 4 are concerned.

Direct
service is permitted.

(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)

sas

   

Top