{"id":147073,"date":"2010-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-16T02:50:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-15T21:20:53","slug":"dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/7885\/2009\t 7\/ 9\tORDER \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. 7885 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nDAHYABHAI\nGOPALBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nCHETA  N PANDYA, FOR S V\nRAJU ASSOCIATES for Applicant(s) : 1, \nMR K L PANDYA, ADDL PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\n2, \nMR HARDIK A DAVE for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\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 RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tPresent<br \/>\napplication has been filed by the applicant   original informant<br \/>\nfor cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 on the grounds<br \/>\nnarrated in detail in memo of application inter-alia that as referred<br \/>\nto in the FIR itself the respondent No.2 had made an attempt to kill<br \/>\nthe applicant and it is only because of the staff member who lifted<br \/>\nthe girl the shot was missed and she was saved.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nCounsel Mr.Pandya for S V Raju Associates for the applicant referred<br \/>\nto the papers including the additional affidavit which was produced<br \/>\non record before the Sessions Court and also the FIR and the order<br \/>\npassed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1554 of<br \/>\n2009 releasing the respondent No.23 on bail.  Learned Counsel,<br \/>\nMr.Pandya referring to these papers pointedly emphasized that as<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 is having a close connection with the higher officer<br \/>\nof the Police Department the investigation has not been properly<br \/>\nmade.  He further submitted that even the learned Sessions Judge<br \/>\nwhile deciding the application for bail has not considered the<br \/>\nsubmissions and the facts for that he referred to the aspect of<br \/>\nrecovery of gun as muddamal and emphasized that the gun has been<br \/>\nreferred in the order granting bail in Criminal Misc. Application<br \/>\nno.1554 of 2009, it has been recorded that nothing has been<br \/>\nrecovered.  Learned Advocate, Mr.Pandya referred to the FSL Report to<br \/>\npoint out that there is a prima-facie evidence in the form of FSL<br \/>\nReport suggesting having shot fired from the said weapon.  He further<br \/>\nreferred to the statement of two independent witnesses produced on<br \/>\nrecord Hemsing as well as Gopalbhai and submitted that both have<br \/>\nstated about incident having take place and the person armed with the<br \/>\nrevolver.  He submitted that though the dispute is with regard to<br \/>\nbusiness and bifurcation of hospital for which memorandum of<br \/>\nunderstanding is arrived at which is produced at Annexure   B the<br \/>\npresent incident is culminated and therefore even though it could be<br \/>\na business rivalry or a dispute the offence could not be considered<br \/>\nlightly.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tMr.Pandya,<br \/>\nlearned Counsel again referred to the order passed in Criminal Misc.<br \/>\nApplication No.1554 of 2009 and pointedly referred to paragraph No.5<br \/>\nand submitted that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not<br \/>\nobject and there is no reason recorded with regard to merits or<br \/>\ndemerits of the case.  He, therefore, submitted that as the order has<br \/>\nbeen passed without considering the merits it is erroneous.  He also<br \/>\nsubmitted that it is necessary to give reasons while releasing the<br \/>\nperson on bail and this order does not reflect any reason the order<br \/>\nis bad.  Mr.Pandya, learned Advocate submitted that therefore this<br \/>\nCourt may consider the circumstances and all the ground which<br \/>\nprima-facie suggest the involvement of the accused and therefore<br \/>\nallow the present application.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1\t\tMr.Pandya,<br \/>\nlearned Counsel referred to the judgment reported in (2009) 1 SCC 678<br \/>\nin case of Brij Nandan Jailwal Vs. Munna Allias Munna Jaiswal &amp;<br \/>\nAnr.,and emphasized the observations with regard to the need for<br \/>\nreasons.  He further submitted that as observed by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex<br \/>\nCourt in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 that the complainant can always<br \/>\nquestion the order granting bail if the order is not validly passed.<br \/>\nHe further submitted that it is not necessary that once the bail is<br \/>\ngranted the only way to get it cancelled on account of misuse.  He<br \/>\nfurther submitted that it is not the only ground that when the<br \/>\nliberty is misused after the accused is released on bail, it could be<br \/>\ncancelled.  He emphasized and submitted that if the order granting<br \/>\nbail is not valid and is not reasoned order it could be examined.  He<br \/>\nalso submitted that while granting bail like the present case of 307<br \/>\nof IPC reasons are required to be justified which is not recorded in<br \/>\nthe present case. He, therefore, submitted that present application<br \/>\nmay be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.2\t\tSimilarly,<br \/>\nMr.Pandya, referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court<br \/>\nreported in (2000) 2 SCC 391 in case of R. Rathinam Vs. State by DSP,<br \/>\nDistrict Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai &amp; Anr.,<br \/>\nreferring to the observations in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 and again<br \/>\nemphasized that even if the bail is granted by the trial Court or<br \/>\nSessions Court the High Court can examine if there is sufficient<br \/>\nmaterial to interfere with such an order.  He also referred to and<br \/>\nrelied upon the judgment reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 in case of<br \/>\nPuran Vs. Rambilas &amp; Anr., and referring to paragraph No.8<br \/>\nsubmitted that it was incumbent upon the Sessions Court to record at<br \/>\nleast some reasons though detailed examination or discussion may not<br \/>\nbe there with regard to the evidence. It is submitted that as it was<br \/>\na day of election, there was a notification issued by the<br \/>\nCommissioner of Police to deposit the fire arms and it has not been<br \/>\ndeposited by the respondent and \/ or his wife who stated to be owner,<br \/>\nhave committed the offence under the Arms Act and still no steps have<br \/>\nbeen taken to join her as an accused. He, therefore, submitted that<br \/>\npresent application may be allowed and the bail may be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tMr.Hardik<br \/>\nDave, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 also referred to<br \/>\nthe papers including the memorandum of understanding and submitted<br \/>\nthat the dispute is of civil nature for which the understanding is<br \/>\narrived at.  He further submitted that the incident which is alleged<br \/>\nto have been taken place is a matter which required to be considered<br \/>\non the basis of evidence at the trial.  He therefore submitted that<br \/>\nfor deciding the present application considering the nature and<br \/>\ngravity of offence order granting bail is just and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tMr.K<br \/>\nL Pandya, learned APP for respondent No.1 referred to the police<br \/>\npapers and submitted that though it is a dispute regarding the<br \/>\nbusiness resulting in this incident, the manner in which it is taken<br \/>\nplace and having regard to the prima-facie evidence in the form of<br \/>\nFSL Report the bail is required to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the rival submissions it is required to be considered whether<br \/>\nthe present application for cancellation of bail can be entertained<br \/>\nor not.  Therefore, as both the sides have referred to this aspect in<br \/>\ndetail this Court is required to consider only the fact which have<br \/>\nbeen emphasized that the material and evidence has not been properly<br \/>\nappreciated.  It has also been emphasized that the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1554 of 2009<br \/>\ngranting bail to the respondent No.2 has not passed a reasoned order.<br \/>\n As it is evident from the order more particularly paragraph No.5 the<br \/>\nsubmissions made by the learned Advocate Mr.Pandya is well founded<br \/>\nthat there is no reason recorded with regard to the grant of bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.1\t\tThe<br \/>\nfirst aspect which has been much emphasized by learned Advocate<br \/>\nMr.Pandya with regard to the reasons not having been recorded while<br \/>\nreleasing the respondent No.2 on bail as per the order passed in<br \/>\nCriminal Misc. Application No.1554 of 2009 by the Sessions Court is<br \/>\nrequired to be considered. As it transpires from the material and<br \/>\nevidence particularly Annexure   B the dispute is of a civil nature<br \/>\nwith regard to the division of the hospital between the parties and<br \/>\nthere was a understanding for which MOU is recorded.  Thereafter, it<br \/>\nhas culminated into incident giving rise to FIR filed at Page   29<br \/>\nfiled against the respondent No.2 by the applicant   first<br \/>\ninformant and it refers to this aspect and some pressure or threat<br \/>\ngiven to the applicant   first informant.  There is a cross<br \/>\ncomplaint also filed by the respondent No.2 which is at page   39.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tThe<br \/>\nCourt is not required to appreciate and scrutinize the evidence in<br \/>\ndetail at this stage for the purpose of considering the application<br \/>\nfor bail or the present application for cancellation of bail.    It<br \/>\nis required to be mentioned that by catena of judicial pronouncement<br \/>\nit has been laid down that reasons are required to be recorded as it<br \/>\nreflects the decision making process to enable the higher form as to<br \/>\nthe consideration which have weighed for deciding such an<br \/>\napplication.  There is nothing mentioned or reflected in the order.<br \/>\nRecording of submissions of both the sides is not a reasoning though<br \/>\nthe Court may not be required to discuss the evidence but is required<br \/>\nto indicate briefly the relevant aspect which has not been done.  At<br \/>\nthe same time the another aspect which has been emphasized by learned<br \/>\nAdvocate Mr.Pandya with regard to the evidence that there is<br \/>\nsufficient evidence to suggest prima-facie involvement of the accused<br \/>\nparticularly in the form of FSL Report.  Again it is a matter of<br \/>\nappreciation of evidence at the trial and though prima-facie the FSL<br \/>\nReport suggest about the firing having made from the weapon this<br \/>\nCourt is not required to consider and scrutinize the same as it would<br \/>\nbe a matter of appreciation of evidence. Therefore the only aspect<br \/>\nwhich is required to be considered is the gravity of offence and the<br \/>\ncriteria for cancellation of a bail.  As it is evidence the dispute<br \/>\nis of a civil nature with regard to sharing or division of a hospital<br \/>\nfor which MOU has been arrived at.  The offences alleged are under<br \/>\nSections 307, 323 and 506 (2) of the IPC as well as for the offence<br \/>\nunder Section 25 (a) (b) of the Arms Act.  The respondent is also a<br \/>\ndoctor and does not have any antecedent.  Therefore though such an<br \/>\nincident prima-facie is taken place it would be a matter of<br \/>\nappreciation of evidence at the trial.  However, for deciding the<br \/>\npresent application for cancellation of bail, the Court is required<br \/>\nto consider the settled principles with regard to cancellation of<br \/>\nbail.  It is well accepted that the criteria or the parameters for<br \/>\ncancellation of bail are stringent and different than grant of bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tThough<br \/>\nlearned Advocate, Mr.Pandya has referred to the judgment of Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex court, more particularly,  Brij Nandan Jailwal (Supra), the<br \/>\nobservations made in paragraph Nos.12 and 13, there is no dispute<br \/>\nwith regard to the discretion of the Court and there is no quarrel<br \/>\nthat the matter could be examined by the Court for the purpose of<br \/>\ndeciding the bail and it is not required to be considered only on the<br \/>\nground that liberty has been misused or abused.  It is also well<br \/>\nsettled that in catena of decisions while considering cancellation of<br \/>\nbail the case may be considered on merits to examine whether the<br \/>\ntrial Court has ignored relevant and important material or has taken<br \/>\ninto consideration the irrelevant material.  In the facts of the case<br \/>\nthough the submissions to the extent of recording of reasons that it<br \/>\nhas not been properly recorded is justified but the conclusion with<br \/>\nregard to grant of bail cannot be said to be erroneous.  Therefore,<br \/>\nin the present circumstances this Court having examined the material<br \/>\nand also the rival submissions based on material and also in light of<br \/>\nthe well accepted principles with regard to the cancellation of bail<br \/>\nwhere it has been observed that the Court has to be conscious and<br \/>\nsuch discretion may not be exercised lightly.  Therefore considering<br \/>\nthe submissions as well as this aspect with regard to the<br \/>\ncancellation of bail and also consideration the papers the present<br \/>\napplication for cancellation of bail deserves to be rejected and<br \/>\naccordingly stands rejected.  However it is clarified that aforesaid<br \/>\nobservations and discussions is only for the purpose of deciding this<br \/>\napplication only and may not be treated as having expressed any<br \/>\nopinion with regard to the merits or appreciation of evidence in any<br \/>\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n<p>(RAJESH<br \/>\nH SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n<p>sompura<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/7885\/2009 7\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 7885 of 2009 ========================================================= DAHYABHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&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-147073","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010 - 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\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-15T21:20:53+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-15T21:20:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1956,\"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\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-15T21:20:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010 - 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\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-15T21:20:53+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-15T21:20:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010"},"wordCount":1956,"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\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","name":"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-15T21:20:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahyabhai-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dahyabhai vs State on 7 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/147073","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=147073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}