{"id":18571,"date":"2008-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-04T17:24:03","modified_gmt":"2019-03-04T11:54:03","slug":"alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R.P.Dholakia,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Patel,&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\/15030\/2007\t 1\/ 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. 15030 of 2007\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1371 of 2007\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nALIMOHMAD\nSULEMANBHAI SUMRA @ KHAFI - Applicant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondents\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPREMAL S RACHH for\nthe Applicant. \nMr. A.J.Desai, Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nRespondent no.1. \nMR PR ABICHANDANI, Additional Senior Standing\nCounsel for Respondent\nno.2. \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 R.P.DHOLAKIA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE DN PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\nDate : 30\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n\t\t\t\tORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL)<\/p>\n<p>1.\t\tThe<br \/>\npresent application has been preferred under section 389 of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded by the<br \/>\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Ahmedabad<br \/>\nvide judgment and order dated 26th September, 2007 in Sessions case<br \/>\nno. 30 of 2001, whereby the present applicant has been convicted and<br \/>\nsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and pay a<br \/>\nfine of Rs. 1 lac, in default, to undergo further  imprisonment of<br \/>\nsix months, for the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 29 of<br \/>\nNDPS Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tHaving<br \/>\nheard the learned advocates for both the sides and looking to the<br \/>\nevidence on record, it is found that :\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\t\tLooking<br \/>\nto exh. 27 which is an intelligence report dated 8th May, 1995, an<br \/>\nintelligence was received by the officers of the Directorate of<br \/>\nRevenue Intelligence wherein the present applicant&#8217;s name and role<br \/>\nplayed by him, in committing offences is reflected.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\t\tIt<br \/>\nappears that in pursuance of the aforesaid intelligence dated 8th<br \/>\nMay, 1995, a huge  quantity of approximately 5325 kgs. of<br \/>\npsychotropic substance worth approximately Rs. 5,22,53,000\/- (of the<br \/>\nyear 1995) was seized. These contraband goods were transported<br \/>\nthrough two trucks. Thus, huge quantity of psychotropic substance was<br \/>\nfound and initially 10 accused persons were tried as others were<br \/>\nabsconding and Sessions cases bearing Sessions Case Nos.  234 of<br \/>\n1994, 72 of 1995, 297 of 1995 and 196 of 1996 were tried against<br \/>\nthose ten accused, which culminated into conviction. Thereafter,<br \/>\nCriminal Appeal Nos. 610 of 1998, 624 of 1998, 634 of 1998, 664 of<br \/>\n1998 and 692 of 1998 were preferred before this Court which were<br \/>\ndismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 20th February,<br \/>\n2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tAgainst<br \/>\nthis judgment of dismissal of Criminal Appeals, by this Court,<br \/>\nSpecial Leave Petitions (Criminal) were preferred and were dismissed<br \/>\nby the  Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court. Thus, arising out of the same<br \/>\nintelligence, which is at exh. 27, charge-sheet was filed. The<br \/>\npresent applicant was not available for investigation. Those 10<br \/>\naccused persons were tried and convicted by the trial court. The<br \/>\nconviction and sentence was upheld by this Court as well as by the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)<br \/>\nIt also appears that on more than one occasion, summonses were issued<br \/>\nunder section 67 of the NDPS Act to the wife of the present applicant<br \/>\ndated 24th May, 1994, 30th May, 1994, 6th June, 1994 and 17th June,<br \/>\n1994, but the present applicant was not available to the officers of<br \/>\nDirectorate of Intelligence from his residence or from his place of<br \/>\nbusiness. Thus, prima facie, he was absconding and therefore,<br \/>\nsubsequent charge-sheet was filed upon his arrest and Sessions case<br \/>\nno. 30 of 2001 was instituted against the present applicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)<br \/>\nLooking to depositions of prosecution witnesses, in no uncertain<br \/>\nterms and in no unequivocal terms, they have  narrated the role<br \/>\nplayed by the present applicant. Looking to these evidences, the<br \/>\napplicant  has played a pivotal role in commissioning of the offence<br \/>\nas alleged by the prosecution. As this a bail application stage, this<br \/>\nCourt is not much analysing the evidence. Suffice it to say that :\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\t\tthe<br \/>\napplicant&#8217;s name is reflected from the very beginning in the<br \/>\nintelligence report (exh. 27).\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)<br \/>\n     As per intelligence report, huge quantity of psychotropic<br \/>\nsubstance weighing about 5325 kgs. has been found   worth<br \/>\napproximately Rs. 5,22,53000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)\t\tEvidence<br \/>\nof several prosecution witnesses have pointed out role played by the<br \/>\napplicant who is running family business of transport and who has<br \/>\nalso provided both the trucks for transport of psychotropic<br \/>\nsubstance. It is also reflected from the evidence that the  applicant<br \/>\nwas present in the truck when the contraband goods were being<br \/>\ntransported. Looking to the depositions of P.W. 1 and of other<br \/>\nofficers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, this applicant has<br \/>\nfinanced the purchase of trucks and he was also present in one of the<br \/>\ntrucks carrying huge quantity psychotropic substance i.e. 5325 Kgs.<br \/>\nThough summons were given under Section 67 of NDPS Act, to the wife<br \/>\nof applicant, he was not available to Investigating Officer. It is<br \/>\nalso reflected in para 67 of charge-sheet filed by Directorate of<br \/>\nRevenue Intelligence.\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)\t\tThe<br \/>\npresent applicant was arrested by police, Bombay under the Arms Act.<br \/>\nDirectorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay applied in Bombay Court<br \/>\nfor custodial interrogation. This is how he was arrested in the<br \/>\npresent case. Also looking to the statement of Dinesh and others<br \/>\nrecorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, the present applicant was<br \/>\ninvolved in the transporting of several contraband articles, like<br \/>\ntransportation of silver goods, contraband chemical powder,<br \/>\ncontraband electrical goods etc.  in past alongwith other co-accused.<br \/>\nAs there are several statements  against the present applicant and as<br \/>\nthis is a bail application stage, this Court is not evaluating the<br \/>\nevidence any further. Suffice it to say that as a cumulative effect,<br \/>\nthere is a prima facie case against the present applicant and also<br \/>\nlooking to the gravity of the offence and quantum of punishment,<br \/>\nthere are all chances that if the sentence is suspended, the present<br \/>\napplicant may not be available and  may involve in similar<br \/>\nactivities.\n<\/p>\n<p>(vi)\t\tThe<br \/>\nlearned advocate for the applicant has relied upon decisions rendered<br \/>\nby the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court mainly for canvassing the point that the<br \/>\nconfessional statement recorded by the investigating agency, of a<br \/>\nco-accused, if not tried together, then cannot be relied upon. Thus,<br \/>\njoint trial with the co-accused who has given confessional statement<br \/>\nis necessary. Looking to the facts of the present case, these<br \/>\njudgments, prima facie, are not applicable to the facts of the<br \/>\npresent case mainly for the reason that over  and above confessional<br \/>\nstatement, there is also another sufficient evidences against the<br \/>\npresent applicant. It starts from exh. 27 intelligence report,<br \/>\nseizure of huge quantity of psychotropic substance and also  several<br \/>\npanchnamas which have been proved during the course of the trial in<br \/>\nSessions case. In view of this additional evidence against the<br \/>\npresent applicant, at this bail stage, we are not inclined to suspend<br \/>\nthe sentence awarded to the applicant by the trial court.  At the<br \/>\nsame time, we hereby direct preparation of the paper book as<br \/>\nexpeditiously as possible so that this appeal can be fixed for final<br \/>\nhearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>(vii)\tIt<br \/>\nhas been held by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/8433\/\">Khilari<br \/>\nvs. State of U.P. and<\/a> another reported in AIR 2008 SC, 1882 in para<br \/>\n10 as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;10:\n<\/p>\n<p> <a href=\"\/doc\/500640\/\">In Anwari Begum vs. Sher Mohammad and Another<\/a> (2005(7) SCC 326) it<br \/>\nwas, inter alia, observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;7.\n<\/p>\n<p> Even on a cursory perusal the High Court&#8217;s order shows complete<br \/>\nnon-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence<br \/>\nand elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be<br \/>\navoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a<br \/>\ncourt dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to<br \/>\nwhether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of<br \/>\nthe merits of the case is not necessary. The Court dealing with the<br \/>\napplication for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a<br \/>\njudicious manner and not as a matter of course.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThere<br \/>\nis a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie<br \/>\nconcluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused<br \/>\nwas charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary<br \/>\nfor the courts dealing with application for bail to consider among<br \/>\nother circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail,<br \/>\nthey are :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1.<br \/>\n\tThe nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of<br \/>\nconviction and the nature of supporting evidence;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.<br \/>\n Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension<br \/>\nof threat to the complainant;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.<br \/>\n  Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Any<br \/>\norder dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind as<br \/>\nwas noted by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/836557\/\">Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh<br \/>\nand Others<\/a> (2002) 3 SCC 598); Puran etc. vs. Rambilas and Another<br \/>\netc. (2001) 6 SCC 338) and in <a href=\"\/doc\/1521407\/\">Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan<\/a><br \/>\nalias Pappu Yadav and Another (JT 2004(3) SC 442).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tLooking<br \/>\nto evidence on record, there is a prima facie case against the<br \/>\napplicant. In support of charge levelled by D.R.I., prima facie,<br \/>\nthere is enough evidence against the applicant like evidence at<br \/>\nExhibit Nos.26, 27, 61, 71, 213, 284 etc. &#8211; witnesses to be read with<br \/>\nExhibit Nos.27, 52 etc. Offence committed by the applicant is an<br \/>\noffence, which affects the society at large. Charge of conspiracy<br \/>\nunder Section 29 of NDPS Act,1985 is also prima facie, proved as per<br \/>\nevidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tAs<br \/>\na cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial<br \/>\npronouncement, there is no substance in this application. Hence, the<br \/>\nsame is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                    (R.P.Dholakia,J)<\/p>\n<p>                     (D.N.Patel,J)<\/p>\n<p>***darji<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008 Author: R.P.Dholakia,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Patel,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/15030\/2007 1\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 15030 of 2007 In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1371 of 2007 ========================================================= ALIMOHMAD SULEMANBHAI SUMRA @ KHAFI &#8211; Applicant Versus [&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-18571","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 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\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-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=\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-04T11:54:03+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\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-04T11:54:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1437,\"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\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-04T11:54:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 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\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-04T11:54:03+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\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-04T11:54:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008"},"wordCount":1437,"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\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008","name":"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-04T11:54:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alimohmad-vs-state-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alimohmad vs State on 30 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/18571","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=18571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}