{"id":214682,"date":"2011-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-30T08:41:45","modified_gmt":"2018-06-30T03:11:45","slug":"bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/15100\/2010\t 9\/ 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. 15100 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nBHARATSINH\nVIJAYSINH PARMAR - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 7 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nEE SAIYED FOR MRSS MUMTAZ SAIYED\nfor Applicant(s) : 1, \nMR\nHL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR AD\nSHAH WITH MR EKANT G AHUJA for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n8. \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\nDate\n: 25\/02\/2011\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>By<br \/>\n\tway of present application filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of<br \/>\n\tCriminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has payed to quash and set<br \/>\n\taside the order of bail granted to the respondent Nos.2 to<br \/>\n\t8-original accused vide order dated 07th December 2010<br \/>\n\tpassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal<br \/>\n\tMiscellaneous Application No.2280 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the case is that the complaint is lodged at the<br \/>\n\tinstance of the present applicant for the offences punishable under<br \/>\n\tSections 467, 468, 471 and 465 read with Section 114 of the Indian<br \/>\n\tPenal Code and First Information Report is registered with Sachin<br \/>\n\tPolice Station being I CR No.189 of 2010. It is the say of the<br \/>\n\tcomplainant that in the said offence, there is a fraud to the tune<br \/>\n\tof Rs.25 Crores to the nation. By order dated 01st<br \/>\n\tOctober 2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11422<br \/>\n\tof 2010, the respondent Nos.2 to 8-accused persons were enlarged on<br \/>\n\tanticipatory bail by this Court. In that order, it was specifically<br \/>\n\tdirected by this Court that the respondent Nos.2 to 8-accused<br \/>\n\tpersons shall have to remain present before the concerned<br \/>\n\tInvestigating Officer on 07th October 2010; however,<br \/>\n\tinstead the said respondents-accused remained present on 04th<br \/>\n\tOctober 2010 before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating<br \/>\n\tOfficer enlarged the respondents-accused on bail on 04th<br \/>\n\tOctober 2010. When the applicant came to know about the said order<br \/>\n\tdated 04th October 2010, immediately thereafter the<br \/>\n\tapplicant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11987 of 2010<br \/>\n\tand vide order dated 06th October 2010, directions were<br \/>\n\tgiven that regular bail application filed by the respondent Nos.2 to<br \/>\n\t8-accused before the Sessions Court shall not be persuaded.<br \/>\n\tThereafter, ultimately on 19th October 2010 this Court<br \/>\n\thas disposed of the said Criminal Miscellaneous Application with a<br \/>\n\tdirection that present applicant can draw the attention of the trial<br \/>\n\tCourt with regard to the facts of the case at the time of hearing of<br \/>\n\tthe regular bail application.\n<\/p>\n<p>During<br \/>\n\tthe hearing of the regular bail application, the applicant requested<br \/>\n\tthe learned Sessions Judge that they have approached the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\n\tSupreme Court of India for cancellation of bail granted to the<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.2 to 8-accused and requested to adjourn the hearing<br \/>\n\tof the regular bail application, but the said request of the<br \/>\n\tapplicant was rejected. Against the said order of rejection, present<br \/>\n\tapplicant preferred Special Criminal Application No.2364 of 2010,<br \/>\n\twhich came up for hearing before this Court on 02nd<br \/>\n\tDecember 2010. On that day, the learned trial Judge has already<br \/>\n\tconcluded the hearing and posted the matter for pronouncement for<br \/>\n\tjudgment. Though it was requested to the learned trial Judge that<br \/>\n\tthe matter i.e. application for cancellation of bail, is pending<br \/>\n\tbefore the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court of India, the learned trial Judge<br \/>\n\tby his order dated 07th December 2010 allowed the regular<br \/>\n\tbail application of the respondent Nos.2 to 8-accused and enlarged<br \/>\n\tthem on regular bail. Being aggrieved by the said order, present<br \/>\n\tapplication is filed by the applicant to cancel the regular bail<br \/>\n\tgranted to the respondent Nos.2 to 8.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr.E.E. Saiyed, learned counsel for Mumtaz Saiyed, learned counsel<br \/>\n\tfor the applicant, Mr.A.D. Shah, learned counsel with Mr.Ekant<br \/>\n\tAhuja, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 8-original<br \/>\n\taccused and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.1-State.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Saiyed<br \/>\n\thas contended that motive behind the offence is not to give excess<br \/>\n\tland to the government by taking benefit of provisions of the Urban<br \/>\n\tLand Ceiling Act, by way of producing false documents showing<br \/>\n\tseveral persons as minor as well as showing several persons on<br \/>\n\trecord, who have not even existed and thus the respondents-accused<br \/>\n\thave committed various offences to the tune of crores of rupees. He<br \/>\n\thas also contended that the Investigating Officer has also filed<br \/>\n\taffidavit supporting the say of the applicant. He has also contended<br \/>\n\tthat it is very clear that there is collusion of the accused persons<br \/>\n\twith the Officers of the Corporation. He has also contended that<br \/>\n\tOfficers of the Corporation and accused persons have jointly engaged<br \/>\n\tadvocate and moved bail application. From the beginning till today,<br \/>\n\tthey are represented by the said common advocate. He has further<br \/>\n\tcontended that though in the order dated 01st October<br \/>\n\t2010 granting anticipatory bail, it was specifically directed that<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.2 to 8-accused shall have to remain present before<br \/>\n\tthe concerned Investigating Officer on 07th October 2010,<br \/>\n\tthey presented themselves before the Investigating Officer on 04th<br \/>\n\tOctober 2010 and on that day itself, the Investigating Officer has<br \/>\n\treleased the respondent Nos.2 to 8-accused on anticipatory bail. He<br \/>\n\thas also contended that the respondents-accused were watching and<br \/>\n\twere well aware of the movement of the applicant and therefore, they<br \/>\n\tremained present before the Investigating Officer on 04th<br \/>\n\tOctober 2010 instead of on 07th October 2010 as directed<br \/>\n\tby this Court. Mr.Saiyed has also contended that conduct of the<br \/>\n\tInvestigating Officer is also doubtful. He has also argued that<br \/>\n\tthere is no necessity for the Investigating Officer to release the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused on anticipatory bail on 04th October<br \/>\n\t2010 though they were to appear before him on 07th<br \/>\n\tOctober 2010 as directed. He has also contended that though the<br \/>\n\tapplicant has made a request before the learned Sessions Judge that<br \/>\n\tas the applicant wants to challenge the order of granting<br \/>\n\tanticipatory bail before the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court of India and<br \/>\n\trequested the learned Sessions Judge to adjourn the matter on 10th<br \/>\n\tNovember 2010, the said request of the applicant was rejected on<br \/>\n\t23rd November 2010. Mr.Saiyed has also contended that the<br \/>\n\tlearned trial Judge was not justified in turning down the request of<br \/>\n\tthe applicant as the respondents-accused are on bail and no harm<br \/>\n\twould have been caused if the adjournment would have been granted.<br \/>\n\tHe has further contended that when the applicant moved against the<br \/>\n\tabove-said order of rejection of adjournment before this Court,<br \/>\n\tunfortunately when the matter came up for hearing on 29th<br \/>\n\tNovember 2010, the trial Court already concluded the hearing of the<br \/>\n\tmatter and the same was kept for pronouncement of the judgment and<br \/>\n\tthus the said application has become infructuous. Mr.Saiyed has<br \/>\n\tfurther contended that when the applicant approached the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\n\tSupreme Court of India, at that time Bench was not available and in<br \/>\n\tthe meanwhile, the learned Sessions Judge has granted regular bail<br \/>\n\tto the respondents-accused and therefore, the application filed<br \/>\n\tbefore the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has become infructuous. He has also<br \/>\n\tvehemently argued that the anticipatory bail was refused by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Sessions Judge on 18th September 2010, in which<br \/>\n\tit was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that accused have<br \/>\n\tprepared false documents, produced false certificates of the persons<br \/>\n\twho did not even existed and also produced seven forged School<br \/>\n\tLeaving Certificates to grab the land of the government. He has also<br \/>\n\tcontended that the learned Sessions Judge has also observed in his<br \/>\n\torder that strong prima-facie case is made out against the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused. Though these observations have been made by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Sessions Judge while refusing the anticipatory bail, the<br \/>\n\tsame Judge has allowed the regular bail application of the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused, under the guise of grant of anticipatory bail,<br \/>\n\tignoring these facts. He has also contended that, prima-facie, it is<br \/>\n\tproved that the School Leaving Certificates produced on record are<br \/>\n\tforged. He has also contended that present applicant has no personal<br \/>\n\tinterest in the matter. He has contended that looking to the overall<br \/>\n\tfacts of the case, present application is required to be allowed and<br \/>\n\tbail granted to the respondent Nos.2 to 8-accused is required to be<br \/>\n\tcancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tagainst this, Mr.A.D. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2<br \/>\n\tto 8-original accused has contended that both, anticipatory and<br \/>\n\tregular bail, are granted with different observations and this Court<br \/>\n\thas taken care and thereafter only bail was granted to the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused. He has also contended that the original accused<br \/>\n\tpersons, who are the real culprits, have expired prior to the filing<br \/>\n\tof complaint. He has also contended that on 01st October<br \/>\n\t2010 anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents-accused and on<br \/>\n\t07th December 2010 regular bail was granted to the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused. Mr.Shah has further contended that upto 07th<br \/>\n\tDecember 2010 the applicant has failed to obtain any orders from the<br \/>\n\tHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court of India. Mr.Shah has further contended that<br \/>\n\teven applicant has never bothered to move any application before the<br \/>\n\tCourt stating the fact that he has moved before the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\n\tCourt of India for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused with Special Leave Petition number between 23rd<br \/>\n\tNovember 2010 and 29th November 2010. He has also<br \/>\n\tcontended that the present application is not a party to the<br \/>\n\toriginal proceedings. He has also contended that State is the<br \/>\n\tcomplainant. He has also contended that present applicant has<br \/>\n\tnothing to do in the complaint. He, therefore, contended that<br \/>\n\tlooking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well<br \/>\n\tas evidence produced on record, present application deserves to be<br \/>\n\tdismissed and order granting regular bail to the respondents-accused<br \/>\n\tis required to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1-State. He has supported the case of the applicant<br \/>\n\tand contended that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave<br \/>\n\terror in enlarging the respondents-accused on regular bail. He has<br \/>\n\talso contended that the respondents-accused have committed fraud to<br \/>\n\tthe tune of Rs.25 Crores. They are involved in the serious offences.<br \/>\n\tHe has contended that looking to the evidence produced on record,<br \/>\n\tpresent application is required to be allowed and order of granting<br \/>\n\tregular bail to the respondent Nos.2 to 8-original accused is<br \/>\n\trequired to be set aside by this Court in the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave gone through the papers produced before me as well as case<br \/>\n\tdairy and police papers produced by Mr.Jani, learned Additional<br \/>\n\tPublic Prosecutor. I have also considered submissions advanced by<br \/>\n\tthe learned counsel for the parties. Looking to the papers produced<br \/>\n\tbefore me, it appears that the learned trial Judge in his order<br \/>\n\trefusing anticipatory bail dated 18th September 2010<br \/>\n\tobserved that there is a strong prima-facie case made out against<br \/>\n\tthe respondents-accused. The said learned trial Judge without<br \/>\n\tappreciating his own observations, enlarged the respondents-accused<br \/>\n\ton regular bail. It also appears that the learned trial Judge has<br \/>\n\tignored the directions given by this Court while enlarging the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused on bail. It also appears from the papers that<br \/>\n\tconduct of the Investigating Officer is also doubtful. When this<br \/>\n\tCourt has given specific direction to the respondents-accused to<br \/>\n\tremain present on 07th October 2010 before the concerned<br \/>\n\tInvestigating Officer, without any reason, the concerned<br \/>\n\tInvestigating Officer has enlarged the respondents-accused on 04th<br \/>\n\tOctober 2010. This shows the conduct of the Investigating Officer.<br \/>\n\tIt also appears from the papers that the respondents-accused have<br \/>\n\tforged the documents and grabbed the land. It is established that<br \/>\n\tthe respondents-accused are land grabbers. The respondents-accused<br \/>\n\tare involved in such a serious offence by forging the documents. The<br \/>\n\tlearned Judge has committed grave error in enlarging the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused on regular bail ignoring his own observations<br \/>\n\tand directions given by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of above observations, I<br \/>\n\tam of the opinion that the respondent Nos.2 to 8-original accused<br \/>\n\tare involved in a serious offence. Hence, the order granting regular<br \/>\n\tbail to the respondent Nos.2 to 8-original accused is required to be<br \/>\n\tcancelled and is hereby cancelled. The order dated 07th<br \/>\n\tDecember 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and<br \/>\n\tPresiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Surat in Criminal<br \/>\n\tMiscellaneous Application No.2280 of 2010 is hereby set aside. The<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.2 to 8-original accused are directed to surrender<br \/>\n\tthemselves before the Police Authority within a period of 10 days<br \/>\n\tfrom the date of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid<br \/>\n\textent.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n<p> FURTHER<br \/>\nORDER<\/p>\n<p>\t\tAfter<br \/>\n\tthe aforesaid order is passed, Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused has submitted that as the respondents-accused<br \/>\n\twant to approach higher forum, some more time may be granted to<br \/>\n\tsurrender themselves.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tConsidering the request made by<br \/>\n\tMr.Shah, instead of 10 days, respondents-accused are directed to<br \/>\n\tsurrender themselves before the Police Authority within a period of<br \/>\n\t30 days from the date of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n<p>Anup<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011 Author: Z.K.Saiyed, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/15100\/2010 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 15100 of 2010 ========================================= BHARATSINH VIJAYSINH PARMAR &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 7 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR [&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-214682","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>Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011 - 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\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-30T03:11:45+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-30T03:11:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2034,\"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\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-30T03:11:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011 - 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\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-30T03:11:45+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-30T03:11:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011"},"wordCount":2034,"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\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011","name":"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-30T03:11:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharatsinh-vs-state-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharatsinh vs State on 27 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/214682","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=214682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}