{"id":130425,"date":"2008-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-11T04:52:26","modified_gmt":"2017-02-10T23:22:26","slug":"maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/1148920\/2008\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 11489 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE\nH.B.ANTANI \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nMAHESHBHAI\nHIMMATGIRI GOSWAMI &amp; 2 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR AJ DESAI, APP for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMR MM TIRMIZI for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n========================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri A.J.Desai, learned APP wavies service of rule on behalf of the<br \/>\n\tState.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tis an application preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in<br \/>\n\tconnection with the FIR bearing C.R.No.I-69 of 2007 registered at<br \/>\n\tRadhanpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections<br \/>\n\t465, 467, 471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the<br \/>\n\tGovernment Servants and the complainant is running Naimishh Gas<br \/>\n\tAgency at Radhanpur. On 19.5.2007, an investigation was carried out<br \/>\n\tby the District Supply Officer and his team and 64 statements of<br \/>\n\tconsumers were recorded by them. Out of the 64 statements, one<br \/>\n\tstatement which was recorded was of dead person and one statement of<br \/>\n\tFaiz Mohmmad was recorded wherein one line was added. It is alleged<br \/>\n\tthat with a view to cancel the license, false record was created and<br \/>\n\tthereby, District Supply Officer and the petitioners i.e. Mamlatdar<br \/>\n\tand DSO have committed an offence punishable under Sections 465,<br \/>\n\t467, 471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate further submitted that the petitioners are innocent<br \/>\n\tpersons and they have not committed any offence alleged against them<br \/>\n\tin the complaint and wrongly roped in. The petitioners even have not<br \/>\n\tabetted<br \/>\n\tor committed any offence in any manner whatsoever as alleged in the<br \/>\n\tFIR. It is submitted that considering Section<br \/>\n\t15 of the Essential Commodities<br \/>\n\tAct, it is clear that since the petitioners are public servants,<br \/>\n\tthey recorded the statements of the consumers while discharging<br \/>\n\ttheir duties and therefore, no prosecution or legal proceedings<br \/>\n\twould lie against them. It is also submitted that even on earlier<br \/>\n\toccasion when the compliant was filed before the Radhanpur Police<br \/>\n\tStation, investigation was carried out and thereafter, DSP, Patan<br \/>\n\tcame to the conclusion that no offence was made out and only<br \/>\n\tdepartmental inquiry was carried out. Thereafter, the FIR was<br \/>\n\tregistered on 1.5.2007 and investigation was carried out by Dy.S.P.,<br \/>\n\tPatan. It is submitted that no evidence was collected by the<br \/>\n\tprosecution about the criminal intention on part of the petitioners<br \/>\n\tto record the statement of the dead person. The learned advocate<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the offence punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of<br \/>\n\tIPC are bailable offence and prima-facie no ingredients of Section<br \/>\n\t467 are made out and therefore, it is a fit case to exercise<br \/>\n\tdiscretion in favour of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate has placed reliance on the FIR produced at Annexure-A to<br \/>\n\tthe petition and the order passed by Superintendent of Police, Shri<br \/>\n\tD.B.Vaghela, Patan, dated 9.3.2007 in support of the submissions<br \/>\n\tthat no offence can be said to have been committed by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners and thus, the learned advocate submitted that the prayer<br \/>\n\tas set out in the petition to enlarge them on anticipatory bail be<br \/>\n\tgranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned APP<br \/>\n\trepresenting the State, while opposing the anticipatory bail<br \/>\n\tapplication, submitted that considering that the petitioners are<br \/>\n\tinvolved in a serious offence punishable under Sections  465, 467,<br \/>\n\t471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, no lenient view can be<br \/>\n\ttaken in the matter. The petitioners have committed the offence<br \/>\n\twhile discharging their duties as a Government servant and this fact<br \/>\n\tcannot be overlooked by the Court in deciding the anticipatory bail<br \/>\n\tapplication. The learned APP has placed reliance on the affidavit in<br \/>\n\treply filed by Mr.K.M.Patel, Dy.S.P., Radhanpur and submitted that<br \/>\n\tconsidering the averments made in the affidavit in reply, no lenient<br \/>\n\tview should be taken in the matter and the application be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr.M.M.Tirmizi appearing for the original complainant<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that considering the fact that the petitioners have<br \/>\n\tcommitted serious offence punishable under  Sections 465, 467, 471,<br \/>\n\t120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code while discharging their<br \/>\n\tduties as a Government servant, no lenient view can be taken in the<br \/>\n\tmatter and no discretionary relief can be granted to the petitioners<br \/>\n\tas the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are required to be<br \/>\n\texercised in very rare and exceptional circumstances. The learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate has placed reliance on following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) Adri<br \/>\n\tDharan Das V\/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 1057.<br \/>\n\tThe learned advocate has placed reliance on this judgment rendered<br \/>\n\tby the Apex Court in support of the submissions that powers under<br \/>\n\tSection 438 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised in exceptional circumstances<br \/>\n\tand they are extra ordinary in character. The object which is sought<br \/>\n\tto be achieved by Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is that the moment a person<br \/>\n\tis arrested, if he has already obtained an order from the Court of<br \/>\n\tSession or High Court, he shall be released immediately on bail<br \/>\n\twithout being sent to jail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b)\tThe case of<br \/>\n\tRamkishan Ramdhari Yadav V\/s.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tState of Gujarat reported in 2007(2) GLH 577 is the<br \/>\n\tjudgment rendered by Gujarat High Court and the aforesaid judgment<br \/>\n\tis relied upon by the learned advocate in support of the submission<br \/>\n\tthat powers under Section 438 can be exercised only in a rare and<br \/>\n\texceptional circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) The case of<br \/>\n\tMohmed Salim Abdul Rasid Shikh V\/s. State of Gujarat reported<br \/>\n\tin 2001(2) GLR 1580 is the judgment rendered by this Court wherein<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Sections 162 and 438 were considered and the Court<br \/>\n\theld that discretion in favour of the accused is required to be<br \/>\n\texercised in exceptional circumstances. The Court further held that<br \/>\n\tit is a settled legal position that grant of anticipatory bail<br \/>\n\tstands on altogether a different footing that the grant of regular<br \/>\n\tbail. When a serious offence is registered against the accused and<br \/>\n\tpolice intends to arrest such accused for such serious offence at<br \/>\n\tthe initial stage, even if Court feels that that apprehension of the<br \/>\n\tarrest in the mind of the accused in reasonable in that event,<br \/>\n\tvarious aspects needs consideration. One should not ignore the<br \/>\n\tspirit and object of the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. This<br \/>\n\tCourt as well as the Apex Court, time and again have emphatically<br \/>\n\tpropounded that the discretion in favuor of the person-accused<br \/>\n\tpraying for anticipatory bail should be exercised sparingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d)\tThe case of<br \/>\n\tState of A.P. V\/s. Bimal Krishan Kundu &amp; Anr. is reported<br \/>\n\tin 1997 (8) SCC 104 and the learned advocate has placed reliance on<br \/>\n\tthe judgment rendered by the Apex Court in support of the submission<br \/>\n\tthat powers under Section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory<br \/>\n\tbail to the accused are required to be exercised in exceptional<br \/>\n\tcircumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e)\tThe case of<br \/>\n\tState V\/s. Anil Sharma is reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187 and<br \/>\n\trelied on by the learned advocate in support of the contentions that<br \/>\n\tpowers are grating the pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.<br \/>\n\tis required to be exercised with great care.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThus, learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate submitted that considering the role attributed to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners and the manner in which the offence is committed by<br \/>\n\tthem, no lenient view is required to be taken in the matter and the<br \/>\n\tapplication deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI have heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate Shri Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioners and<br \/>\n\tlearned APP Shri A.J.Desai and learned advocate, Shri M.M.Tirmizi,<br \/>\n\tfor the original complainant in great detail and at length. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners are booked for the offence punishable under Sections<br \/>\n\t465, 467, 471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the<br \/>\n\tprosecution case, the petitioners who worked as a Government servant<br \/>\n\tcarried out the inspection and recorded the statements of 64<br \/>\n\tconsumers. It is also alleged that out of 64 statements, one<br \/>\n\tstatement which was recorded was that of a dead person and in<br \/>\n\tstatement of Faiz Mohmmad one line was added and thus, with a view<br \/>\n\tto cancel the license, the petitioners made a  license false record<br \/>\n\tand thereby, they have committed the offence punishable under<br \/>\n\tSection  465, 467, 471, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. I<br \/>\n\thave perused the papers produced by the learned APP and the<br \/>\n\tstatement on which the reliance is placed at the time of hearing of<br \/>\n\tthe application. The detail affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of<br \/>\n\tthe State by Mr.K.M.Patel, Dy.S.P., Radhanpur, District: Patan is<br \/>\n\talso perused by me. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that at<br \/>\n\tthe material point of time, the applicant No.1 was the Chief Supply<br \/>\n\tInspector, applicant No.2 was Supply Inspector and applicant NO.3<br \/>\n\twas Dy. Mamlatdar. The applicants went for inspection of a Gas<br \/>\n\tAgency of the complainant on 19.7.2005, inspected the records<br \/>\n\tmaintained by the applicants and recorded the statement of 64<br \/>\n\tpersons. On the basis of the said inspection, the license of the<br \/>\n\tcomplainant for Gas Agency came to be canceled. Out of the statement<br \/>\n\tof 64 persons, statements of one Vora Abdul Barik Abdul Rasul was<br \/>\n\talso recorded. However,  Vora Abdul Barik Abdul Rasul had<br \/>\n\texpired way back in the 20.4.1995 and as per the complaint, said<br \/>\n\tstatement was recorded in the presence of applicant No.3. Another<br \/>\n\tstatement of Meman Tejmohammad Umarbhai was also recorded at the<br \/>\n\ttime of the inspection and subsequently as per the case of the<br \/>\n\tcomplaint, there were some alterations made in the statement. It was<br \/>\n\talso recorded in the presence of D.S.O. The aforesaid involvement is<br \/>\n\ta matter of investigation. It is also required to be investigated.<br \/>\n\tas to who had made the alleged alterations and at whose instances<br \/>\n\tsuch alterations are made.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of the<br \/>\n\taforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the<br \/>\n\trole attributed to the petitioners, the alleged involvement of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners in serious offence under Section  465, 467, 471, 120-B<br \/>\n\tand 114 of the Indian Penal Code the quantum of punishment etc., I<br \/>\n\tam of the view that the discretionary powers under Section 438 of<br \/>\n\tCr.P.C. cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioners as the<br \/>\n\tpowers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised in very rare<br \/>\n\tand exceptional circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tConsidering<br \/>\n\tmanner in which the alleged offences are committed by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners and the seriousness of the offence in which they are<br \/>\n\tinvolved, no discretionary relief can be granted to the petitioners<br \/>\n\tand as the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be<br \/>\n\trejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the forgoing<br \/>\n\treasons, the petition is liable to fail and it is hereby rejected.<br \/>\n\tRule discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.B.ANTANI,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>ashish\/\/ <\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008 Author: H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/1148920\/2008 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 11489 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-10T23:22:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-10T23:22:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1700,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-10T23:22:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-10T23:22:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-10T23:22:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008"},"wordCount":1700,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008","name":"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-10T23:22:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maheshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}