Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9913/2005 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9913 of 2005
=================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT
Versus
NATUBHA
UMEDSINH PARMAR AND OTHERS
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR HM PRACHHAK, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the Applicant
MR PM THAKKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR.DIPAK THAKKAR for Respondent Nos.6 ,10, 11, 15 and
23
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.S.DAVE
Date
: 02/09/2005
ORAL
ORDER
The
applicant, State of Gujarat has preferred this application under
Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opponent herein
by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal
Misc.Application No.103 of 2005 vide order dated 27.05.2005 in
C.R.No.I-53/2004 registered at Muli Police Station for the offences
punishable under Section 420, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
That
several contentions have been raised by the applicant State for
cancellation of the anticipatory bail. However, when the matter was
called out yesterday, i.e. on 1st September 2005, this
Court passed following order:
?SHeard Shri H.M
Prachhak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri
P.M.Thakkar, learned senior advocate with Mr.Dipak Thakkar
for the respondents.
Shri Prachhak, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor requests for time to seek instructions
from his counterpart at the District Court, Surendranagar.
The matter stands
adjourned to 2nd September 2005.??
It
is pertinent to note that the order passed by the Sessions Judge,
Surendranagar in Criminal Misc.Application
No.103 of 2005 is dated 27th May 2005. Clause 6 of the
conditions as imposed alongwith the order
refers that the order shall remain in force for a period of 90 days
from the date of the order, but the applicants shall apply for
obtaining regular bail within a period 10 days from the date of their
arrest.
It
is an admitted position that this application is filed by the State
of Gujarat on 24th August 2005 and upon hearing learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court passed an oral order dated
25th August 2005 as under:
?SHeard ld.APP Mr. LR
Pujari for the petitioner State. Considering the gravity of the
offence and other circumstances placed on record and the amount
involved in the financial scam, the present Cri. Misc. Application
challenging the impugned order granting anticipatory bail dated
27.05.2005 granted in favour of the respondents accused passed by the
ld. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Cri. Mis. Application
No.103/2005 requires consideration.
Hence, notice to the
respondents returnable on 01.09.2005.
In the meanwhile, the
operation and execution of the impugned order granting anticipatory
bail dated 27.05.2005 granted in favour of the respondents accused
passed by ld. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Cri. Misc. Application
No.103/2005, is placed under suspension till the returnable date.
D.S. Permitted.??
It
is clear from the record of the case that when the order dated 25th
August 2005 was passed, 90 days, a duration of anticipatory bail as
granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar stands over.
Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor having taken
instructions from his counterpart from the District Court,
Surendranagar has fairly stated that the order dated 25th
August 2005 will have no effect, since the period of 90 days is
already over and challenge to the impugned order dated 27.05.2005
does not exist any more. He has further submitted that if remedy is
available under the law, the State authority can move an appropriate
Court for cancellation of the bail granted by the trial Court or the
subordinate Court.
Shri
P.M.Thakkar, learned senior advocate appearing for the opponents
argued that the accused have right to move a fresh application for
anticipatory bail or to ask for extension
of time as the case may be and since the subject matter of the
present case does not remain in existence
as the challenge by the State on the grounds mentioned therein, the
order dated 25th August 2005 staying the execution of
earlier order dated 27th May 2005 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Surendranagar does not require any adjudication.
Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that
the arguments of both the parties reveal one fact that duration of
anticipatory bail of 90 days as prescribed
in Clause No.6 of the order dated 27th May 2005 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Misc.Application
No.103 of 2005 is already over and, therefore, the order dated 25th
August 2005 has become infractuous and it has no bearing in view of
the grounds on which the impugned order came to be challenged.
In
the circumstances, this application is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations. Notice stands discharged.
(ANANT
S.DAVE, J.)
*Shitole
Top