{"id":176997,"date":"2010-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-18T04:10:37","modified_gmt":"2017-08-17T22:40:37","slug":"ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&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\/9892\/2010\t 7\/ 7\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. 9892 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1540 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nKETAN\nBABUBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSB VAKIL SENIOR COUNSEL with MR VIJAY H PATEL\nfor\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR HL JANI Ld. APP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nYN OZA &amp; MR BB NAIK SENIOR COUNSEL with MS ROMA  I FIDELIS for\nRespondents\n2-3 \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 Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 27\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\napplicant, who is booked in a Criminal Case, has filed this<br \/>\napplication to join him as a party respondent in Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication No. 1540\/2010 filed by the original complainant, which is<br \/>\npending for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIt<br \/>\nis the say of the applicant that the applicant is arraigned as one of<br \/>\nthe accused in the present FIR and hence, the outcome of the said<br \/>\npetition I.e. Special Criminal Application No. 1540\/2010 would have<br \/>\ndirect bearing on the result of criminal proceedings filed against<br \/>\nthe applicant. Hence, the present applicant is required to be joined<br \/>\nas party respondent in the said petition. It is further<br \/>\nthe say of the applicant that the applicant has preferred quashing<br \/>\npetition before this Court, which was rejected by this Court and<br \/>\nagainst the said order, the applicant has preferred SLP before the<br \/>\nSupreme Court being Special Leave to Appeal No. 6927-6932 of 2009.<br \/>\nThe present applicant has suppressed the said facts intentionally and<br \/>\nhas not produced the order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt, wherein, the interim relief was granted to the effect that the<br \/>\napplicant shall not be arrested without the leave of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt. It is further the say of the applicant that the Supreme Court<br \/>\nin the proceedings viz. Special Leave to Appeal No. 6927-6932 of 2009<br \/>\nwas pleased to direct the High Court to hear and decide all the<br \/>\nSpecial Criminal Applications pending before this Court, including<br \/>\nSpecial Criminal Application Nos. 2176 of 2009, 1811 of 2009, 1855 of<br \/>\n2009, 2259 of 2008 and in pursuance of the said order, this Court has<br \/>\nheard the matters and decided all the above referred Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplications by order dated 13.4.2010, and was pleased to transfer<br \/>\nthe investigation as the investigation was not carried out on certain<br \/>\naspects.  It is further the say of the applicant that by passing the<br \/>\nsaid order, all the Special Criminal Application were disposed of. It<br \/>\nis the say of the applicant that once the final order is passed, all<br \/>\nthe interim orders passed by this Court merges in the final order<br \/>\ndated 13.4.2010. Therefore, it is not fair on the part of the<br \/>\nopponents no. 2 and 3 to place unnecessary reliance and weightage on<br \/>\nthe interim orders passed in Special Criminal Application No.<br \/>\n1855\/2008. It is further the<br \/>\nsay of the applicant that one Criminal Misc. Application No. 822\/2010<br \/>\nwas filed for joining as party in Special Criminal Application No.<br \/>\n2259 of 2008 by one of the accused and one another Criminal Misc.<br \/>\nApplication No. 1240\/2010 was also filed for joining party in Special<br \/>\nCriminal Application No. 1811 of 2009, wherein, it was ordered that<br \/>\naforesaid Criminal Misc. Applications be heard with above referred<br \/>\nSpecial Criminal Applications. In view of the above facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances, the applicant is also required to be heard and<br \/>\npermitted to be joined as party respondent no. 2 in the said Special<br \/>\nCriminal Application NO. 1540\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tHeard<br \/>\nMs SB Vakil learned Senior Counsel for Mr Vijay Patel learned<br \/>\nadvocate for the applicant. Mr. Vakil has vehemently argued that the<br \/>\nsaid Special Criminal Application is not tenable in eye of law. Mr<br \/>\nVakil has further contended that in this matter, investigation was<br \/>\ncarried out by the investigating agency and C-Summary report is filed<br \/>\nbefore the learned Magistrate. He has read the judgment of this Court<br \/>\ndated 13.4.2010 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 1855 of<br \/>\n2008 with Special Criminal Application Nos. 2259\/2008, 1911\/2009,<br \/>\n2176\/2009 and 2239\/2009 and contended that the observation made by<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge of this Court in the said judgment is<br \/>\nrequired to be considered in the context of the original prayer made<br \/>\nby the respondents. He has also contended that judicial review is not<br \/>\nfor C-Summary report. He has vehemently argued that after completion<br \/>\nof investigation, when C-Summary report is filed,<br \/>\nthen, no cause has arisen for the complainant to file the said<br \/>\npetition.  He has also contended that the said order is already<br \/>\nchallenged by the original accused before the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court<br \/>\nand SLP is pending. He has also read C-Summary report filed by the<br \/>\nInvestigating Agency and argued that the police has considered the<br \/>\ncase of respondent   original complainant as a case of civil<br \/>\nnature. Therefore, the remedy is available to the original<br \/>\ncomplainant to appear before the lower Court and to oppose the report<br \/>\nof C-Summary.  Mr. Vakil has relied upon the decisions in the case of<br \/>\n (1) <a href=\"\/doc\/336701\/\">Divine Retreat<br \/>\nCentre vs. State of Kerala and Ors.,<\/a> reported in 2008(2) SCC Cri.<br \/>\nPage 9, (2) <a href=\"\/doc\/60105\/\">D. Venkatasubramaniam &amp; Ors. vs. M.K.  Mohan<br \/>\nKrishnamachari &amp; Anr.,<\/a> reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488,<br \/>\nand argued that the  prayer for investigation through CBI cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered. Mr. Vakil has also raised a question that how amendment<br \/>\ncan be granted for CBI investigation.  Mr. Vakil has also contended<br \/>\nthat when the learned Single Judge has already refused to handover<br \/>\nthe investigation to CBI, then, the said application cannot be<br \/>\nentertained. Mr. Vakil has also read the reply page 79 [para-5] and<br \/>\nargued that the presence of the applicant is required in Special<br \/>\nCriminal Application No. 1540\/2010 and, therefore, this application<br \/>\nrequires to be allowed and the applicant may be joined as party<br \/>\nrespondent in Special Criminal Application No. 1540\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAs<br \/>\nagainst this, Mr YN Oza learned Senior Counsel<br \/>\nfor Ms. Roma I. Fidelis learned advocate appearing<br \/>\n for respondents nos. 2 and 3, has contended that this application<br \/>\ncannot be considered because this is a question between the Court and<br \/>\nthe original complainant and present applicant has no locus standi to<br \/>\nmake any request to join him as party respondent in the said Special<br \/>\nCriminal Application. Mr Oza has further contended that the decisions<br \/>\nrelied upon by the applicant are not applicable to the facts of the<br \/>\npresent case. Mr Oza has read the order of learned Single Judge of<br \/>\nthis court and also relied upon the unreported decision of this Court<br \/>\nrendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8210 of 2005 and argued<br \/>\nthat, in the said order, the learned Single Judge has observed in<br \/>\nconnection with the  question with regard to the issue of C-Summary<br \/>\nand the accused has no right to say anything. Mr Oza has also drawn<br \/>\nmy attention to the decision of this Court in the case of   <a href=\"\/doc\/1147382\/\">Panatar<br \/>\nArvindbhai Ratilal vs. State of Gujarat &amp; Ors.,<\/a>  reported in<br \/>\n1991(1) GLR p. 451 and<br \/>\nargued that the prayer of the applicant is required to be rejected.<br \/>\nMr. Oza has also contended that so far as the issue of locus standi<br \/>\nis concerned, he has relied upon the decisions in the cases of<br \/>\n <a href=\"\/doc\/1574164\/\">Central Bureau of<br \/>\nInvestigation and Anr., vs. Rajesh Gandhi &amp; Anr.,<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n(1996) 11 SCC 253 and<br \/>\nin the case of<br \/>\nUnion of India and anr. vs. WN Chadha, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC<br \/>\n260 and submitted that<br \/>\nthe present applicant has no locus standi  and, therefore, this<br \/>\napplication filed by the applicant requires to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\nreply to this, Mr Vakil has also contended that<br \/>\nin Criminal Misc. Application No. 7394\/2010, this Court has also<br \/>\nconsidered that issue and has raised the question that so far as<br \/>\njurisdiction regarding C-Summary report is concerned, the same is<br \/>\nonly with the learned Magistrate and first of all the respondent has<br \/>\nto go before the learned Magistrate after so approaching and on<br \/>\npassing of the order by Ld. Magistrate, if respondent is aggrieved,<br \/>\nthen respondent ori. Complainant can challenge the same. Therefore,<br \/>\nfirst of all, he has to obtain some order in connection of C-Summary<br \/>\nreport filed by the Investigating Agency and, thereafter, the issue<br \/>\nof transfer of investigation can arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe parties and perused the papers. It is true that in this matter,<br \/>\nC-Summary report is already filed by the Investigating Agency in<br \/>\nconnection with the original complaint filed by the original<br \/>\ncomplainant -respondent. It is required to be considered that the<br \/>\napplicant, who is an accused of the FIR has no locus standi at this<br \/>\nstage to  question the manner in which the evidence is to be<br \/>\ncollected by the Investigating Agency. However, it is open for the<br \/>\napplicant   original accused to challenge the admissibility and<br \/>\nreliability of the evidence only at the stage of trial in  case the<br \/>\ninvestigation ends up in filing the final report under sec. 173 of<br \/>\nCrPC indicating that an offence appears to  have been committed.  I<br \/>\nhave also considered the submissions made by Mr Vakil learned Senior<br \/>\nCounsel appearing for the applicant in this application.<br \/>\nIt also appears from the contentions raised in Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication that the right of the original accused cannot be said to<br \/>\nhave been prejudiced. So, first of all, from the perusal of the<br \/>\npapers produced before this Court, I am of the opinion that looking<br \/>\nto the original prayer made in Special Criminal Application, the<br \/>\npresent applicant has no locus standi to file this application to<br \/>\njoin him as a party respondent in the said Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication and hence, this application requires to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nthe  result, this application is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>SAIYED, J)<\/p>\n<p>mandora\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/9892\/2010 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 9892 of 2010 In SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1540 of 2010 ========================================================= KETAN BABUBHAI PATEL &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT [&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-176997","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>Ketan vs State on 27 September, 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\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-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=\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-17T22:40:37+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-17T22:40:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1491,\"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\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-17T22:40:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 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":"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 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\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-17T22:40:37+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-17T22:40:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010"},"wordCount":1491,"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\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","name":"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-17T22:40:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ketan-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ketan vs State on 27 September, 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\/176997","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=176997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}