Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7210/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7210 of 2010
=========================================
VAJESING
DITABHAI PARGHI & 1
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR PM DAVE for Applicant Nos.1
- 2.
MR HL JANI, APP for
Respondent
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 20/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
application is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by the applicants who have been arrested in connection with
C.R. No. I – 254 of 2008 filed before the Dahod Rural Police
Station, for the offence punishable under sections 394, 396, 201 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Mr.P. M.
Dave, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the
applicants are innocent persons and they have not committed any
offence and are implicated in the commission of the offence. He
submitted that in the present case the police has completed the
investigation in connection with the FIR and the police has also
deleted the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code qua the
applicants as there is no prima facie case under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. He submitted that it can never be said that the
applicants have committed any offence under Section 394 of the Indian
Penal Code as there is no material worth the name has been collected
by the police during the course of investigation which proves that
the deceased had received the amount of bonus from Ratlam Railway
Office. Similarly no offence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal
Code is made out against the applicants as no ingredients of the said
offence are also satisfied to implicate the applicants in the present
case. He submitted that there is no recovery or discovery from the
present applicants, though the applicants were on remand for three
days. He submitted that considering the role attributed to the
applicants and reflected in the FIR at Annexure ‘A’ to the
application, this is a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular
bail.
As against
the aforesaid, learned APP Mr.H. L. Jani submitted that considering
the role played by the applicants, no discretionary relief can be
granted to the applicants, and the application deserves to be
dismissed.
Having
heard the rival submissions of learned advocates and having
considered the role attributed to the applicants and reflected in the
FIR at Annexure A, the quantum of punishment etc., I am of the view
that the the applicants are required to be enlarged on regular bail
at this stage on stringent conditions, without entering into the
merits of the case and without discussing the evidence in detail.
The
parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In the
facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and
the applicants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with
C.R. No. I – 254 of 2008 registered with Dahod Rural Police Station,
on their executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten thousand only]
each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial court and subject to the conditions that they shall:
[a] not
take undue advantage of their liberty or abuse their liberty;
[b]. not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c]. surrender
their passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d]. not
leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the
Sessions court concerned;
[e]. mark
their presence at the concerned Police Station on 30th day
of each English calendar month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM. till the
trial is over;
[f]. furnish
the present address of their residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change their
residence without prior permission of this Court;
[g]. maintain
law and order.
If breach
of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge
concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate action
in the matter.
Bail bond
to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the
case.
At the
trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of
preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this
Court while enlarging the applicants on bail.
Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is
permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
(vijay)
Top