Gujarat High Court High Court

========================================================= vs Mr Divyesh Sejpal on 17 June, 2010

Gujarat High Court
========================================================= vs Mr Divyesh Sejpal on 17 June, 2010
Author: H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/4869/2010	 2/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4869 of 2010
 

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


 

MOHAMMEDHARUN
MOHAMMEDAIYUB ANSARI 

 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
AZIZ AN ALVI for Applicants. 
MR DIVYESH SEJPAL, ADDL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Respondent. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/06/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Leave
to delete applicants No. 2 and 3 since separate application being
Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 6286 of 2010 is already filed qua them. Hence
applicants No.2 and 3 stands deleted. This order is passed qua
applicant No.1 only.

Rule.

Mr. Divyesh Sejpal, Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
rule on behalf of the respondent State. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, this application is taken up for
hearing today.

This
application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail by the applicant, who came to be
arrested in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No. I 75 of
2009 with Ahmedabad Railway Police
Station for offences punishable under Sections 384, 395 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code.

Heard Learned advocate Mr. Alvi for the applicant and Mr. Divyesh
Sejpal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State.

Having
regard to the rival submissions and on perusal of the averments made
in the application as well as the FIR produced on record, the
provisions Sections 384, 395 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and
the role alleged against the applicant and the quantum of punishment,
I am of the view that the the applicant is required to be enlarged
on regular bail at this stage, 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 applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection
with Prohibition C.R. No. I 75 of 2009 with Ahmedabad Railway
Police Station on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten
thousand only] with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial court and subject to the conditions
that he shall:

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

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

[c]. surrender
his 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
his presence at Ahmedabad
Railway Police Station on any day of every first week
of English calendar month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM. till the trial
is over;

[f]. furnish
the present address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his
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 applicant on bail.

Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent qua applicant No.1. Rule is
discharged qua applicants No.2 and 3 as they stand deleted.

Direct
Service is permitted.

mathew						[H.B.ANTANI,
J.]
 


 
 



    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top