Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9584/2005 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9584 of 2005
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 947 of 2004
=================================================
JITENDRA
@ MUNNO MADHUKANT DAVE
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH for
Applicant
MR SP HASURKAR APP for
Respondent No(s).:
1.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA
Date
: 23/08/2005
ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP Mr.S.P.Hasurkar waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent ? State of Gujarat.
The
present applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of seven years, vide judgment and order dated
27.12.2002 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track
Court, Junagadh in Sessions Case Nos.20/2003 and 21/2003. Against
the above said judgment and order, the applicant has preferred
Criminal Appeal No.947/2004, which came to be admitted by this Court
on 22.06.2004. However, during pendency of the said Criminal Appeal,
the applicant is not released on bail, after suspending substantive
sentence of imprisonment and the order is passed by this Court on
22.06.2004 in Criminal Misc. Application No.5251/2004.
Learned
advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh for the applicant stated that now the
applicant has already undergone imprisonment of two years and nine
months and when the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future,
after suspending the sentence inflicted upon the applicant, he be
released on bail during the pendency of the said Criminal Appeal.
Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Bhagwan Rama Shinde
Gosai and others Vs. State of Gujarat, as reported in AIR
1999 S.C 1859.
The
request made by the applicant cannot be accepted for the simple
reason that firstly, the bail plea of the applicant is rejected by
this Court earlier and at this juncture, it is premature to come to
the conclusion that the appeal is not likely to be heard in near
future and, therefore, the decision as cited by the learned advocate
of the Apex Court has no application to the facts of this case. In
this case, still, paper book is not received and the matter is not
notified on final hearing board. However, the office is directed to
call for the paper book from the trial Court as early as possible
and notify the main Criminal Appeal on final hearing board.
With
the said observation, this application stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
[J.
R. VORA,J.]
vijay
Top