{"id":232182,"date":"2010-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-26T14:02:56","modified_gmt":"2018-08-26T08:32:56","slug":"santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Santosh vs State on 7 October, 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\/11557\/2010\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. 11557 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nSANTOSH\nSASHIKANT DABHOLKAR - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nNIKHIL S KARIEL for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR MR MENGDEY, APP for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned APP Mr. MR Mengdey waives service of rule on behalf of<br \/>\nrespondent   State.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tPresent<br \/>\napplication has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail<br \/>\nunder Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The<br \/>\napplicant accused is charged with having committed offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 114 read with Section<br \/>\n120B of the Indian Penal Code for which the FIR being C.R.No. I-243<br \/>\nof 2004 has been registered with Bhuj City Police Station.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate Mr. N.S.Kariel referred to the FIR and submitted that there<br \/>\nare no allegations against the applicant and applicant has not made<br \/>\nany promise. He further submitted that as he was Managing Director at<br \/>\nthe relevant time, he has been implicated.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was submitted that considering the nature of offence where the<br \/>\ncompany had made a scheme which ultimately lead to the filing of the<br \/>\nFIR for the alleged offence. However, he cannot be said to have<br \/>\ncommitted any breach of trust and therefore present application may<br \/>\nbe allowed. He has also submitted that the other co-accused has been<br \/>\nreleased. Therefore, the present application may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned<br \/>\nAPP Mr. Mengdey referred to the papers and submitted that the<br \/>\napplicant has been involved in a large scale scam with a systematic<br \/>\ndesign to defraud the people and thereby collected huge amount. He<br \/>\nfurther submitted that the company in which he was Managing Director<br \/>\nmade a scam, and as it appears from the FIR and the other papers, he<br \/>\nhas collected huge amount through agents and dupe the people which<br \/>\nlead to the filing of the different complaints including the<br \/>\ncomplaints in State of Maharashtra. He has submitted that in fact the<br \/>\npresent application is a successive bail application as the applicant<br \/>\nhad also filed Special<br \/>\nCriminal Application No. 494 of 2010<br \/>\nat Annexure-E and the same was disposed of by this Court (Coram:<br \/>\nA.S.Dave, J.) vide order dated 05.05.2010 in view of the fact that<br \/>\nthe trial has commenced and about 21 witnesses have already been<br \/>\nexamined and only 5 witnesses remained to be examined. Thereafter,<br \/>\nthe present application has been filed. He strenuously<br \/>\nsubmitted that no change of circumstances has been pointed out and in<br \/>\nfact when the trial is proceeded already, the present application<br \/>\ncannot be entertained. He further submitted that the applicant had<br \/>\nfiled Special<br \/>\nLeave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5392 of 2009<br \/>\nwhich came to be allowed as per the order dated 09.11.2009 with a<br \/>\ncondition that the petitioner can be released on a stringent<br \/>\ncondition to be determined by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Trial<br \/>\nCourt has imposed the condition to deposit Rs. 50 lacs as one of the<br \/>\nconditions of the bail. Again the present applicant moved the Hon ble<br \/>\nApex Court by way of an application for modification of the condition<br \/>\nregarding depositing the amount of Rs. 50 lacs. That condition was<br \/>\nmodified by the Hon ble Apex Court and the petitioner was directed<br \/>\nto deposit Rs. 25 lacs as a condition for bail. In spite of that the<br \/>\npresent application has been filed and compliance has not been made<br \/>\nwith the condition imposed by the Hon ble Apex Court while<br \/>\nmodifying and reducing the amount of Rs. 25 lacs as per the order<br \/>\ndated 26.02.2010<br \/>\nin CRLMP<br \/>\nNo. 2074 of 2010 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5392 of 2009.<br \/>\nHe, therefore, submitted that the present application may not be<br \/>\nentertained as, in spite of indulgence by the Hon ble Apex Court<br \/>\nalso he has failed to comply with any condition.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered<br \/>\nwhether the present application can be entertained or not. It is well<br \/>\naccepted that the Court<br \/>\nis not required to appreciate and scrutinize the evidence in detail<br \/>\nat this stage. However, for considering prima facie case, as it<br \/>\ntranspires that the applicant was Managing Director of the company<br \/>\nwhich has, by way of scam, duped the people and thereby a systematic<br \/>\ndesign was made to defraud the people which lead to filing of the<br \/>\ncomplaints including in the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, it<br \/>\ncannot be said that there is no prima facie case as sought to be<br \/>\ncanvassed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tFurther,<br \/>\nas it is evident from the record, particularly the order of the High<br \/>\nCourt in Special Criminal Application No. 494 of 2010 dated<br \/>\n05.05.2010 that 21 witnesses have been examined and only 5 witnesses<br \/>\nremained to be examined. This would suggest that the trial has<br \/>\nproceeded and progressed. Therefore, it also cannot be said that<br \/>\nthere is a delay in the trial. Further, this being a successive bail<br \/>\napplication, no change of circumstances has been pointed out.<br \/>\nMoreover, the fact that the applicant is in custody cannot be a<br \/>\nground for entertaining the successive bail application when there is<br \/>\nno material change of circumstance pointed out. The Hon ble Apex<br \/>\nCourt had considered such arguments with regard to the delay in trial<br \/>\nand Article 21 of the Constitution of India in its judgment in the<br \/>\ncase of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu<br \/>\nYadav and another, reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court<br \/>\nP. 921. The Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court has pointedly referred to the<br \/>\naspect of successive bail application and has considered the right of<br \/>\nthe accused under Article 21. It has been observed in paras 18 and 19<br \/>\nas under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 18.\tIt<br \/>\nis a trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in<br \/>\naccordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is<br \/>\na constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the<br \/>\nabove right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by<br \/>\nprocedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this<br \/>\ncountry, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is<br \/>\nliable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless<br \/>\nhe is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot<br \/>\nbe questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is<br \/>\nauthorised by law&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tThe<br \/>\nprinciples of&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; Ordinarily, the issues which had been<br \/>\ncanvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the<br \/>\nsame grounds, as the same would lead to a speculation and uncertainty<br \/>\nin the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe<br \/>\nHon ble Apex Court has also, while entertaining the Special Leave<br \/>\nPetition (Crl.) No. 5392 of 2009 vide its order dated 9.11.2009,<br \/>\nallowed it subject to the condition regarding deposit of the amount<br \/>\nto the satisfaction of the trial Court as a stringent condition which<br \/>\nwas left to the trial Court. When the Trial Court has imposed the<br \/>\ncondition to deposit Rs. 50 lacs it has not been complied with.<br \/>\nThereafter, again the petitioner has moved the Hon ble Apex Court<br \/>\nby way of CRLMP No. 2074 of 2010 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.<br \/>\n5392 of 2009 which also came to be disposed of vide order dated<br \/>\n26.02.2010 by the Hon ble<br \/>\nApex Court and it has been specifically observed,  We accordingly<br \/>\nmodify this condition and direct that the petitioner shall deposit<br \/>\nRupees twenty five lakhs as a one time payment as one of the<br \/>\nconditions for bail. The application is allowed in the above terms.<br \/>\nThus, in spite of the indulgence granted by the Hon ble Apex Court<br \/>\nwith a further condition of depositing lesser amount, the petitioner<br \/>\nhas tried to wriggle out the said condition by way of present<br \/>\napplication which cannot be permitted. It is required to be mentioned<br \/>\nthat in fact the petitioner has sought the modification of the<br \/>\ncondition imposed by the Hon ble Apex Court vide its order dated<br \/>\n26.02.2010 in CRLMP No. 2074 of 2010 in Special<br \/>\nLeave to Appeal (Crl) No. 5392 of 2009, which is not<br \/>\npermissible as the condition imposed by the Hon ble Apex Court<br \/>\ncannot be substituted or modified by this Court and the Hon ble<br \/>\nApex Court has, on the contrary, granted indulgence to modify the<br \/>\ncondition and reduced the amount to be deposited. Therefore, once the<br \/>\ncondition imposed by the Hon ble Apex Court has not been complied<br \/>\nwith, the present application cannot be entertained as it would<br \/>\namount to interfere with the order of the Hon ble Apex Court<br \/>\nsubstituting the condition of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court. Therefore, the<br \/>\npresent application deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands<br \/>\nrejected. Rule discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>(RAJESH<br \/>\nH. SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n<p>jani<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Santosh vs State on 7 October, 2010 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/11557\/2010 1\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 11557 of 2010 ========================================================= SANTOSH SASHIKANT DABHOLKAR &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NIKHIL [&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-232182","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>Santosh vs State on 7 October, 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\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-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=\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-26T08:32:56+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T08:32:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1370,\"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\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T08:32:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 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":"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 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\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-26T08:32:56+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T08:32:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"wordCount":1370,"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\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","name":"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T08:32:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santosh vs State on 7 October, 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\/232182","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=232182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}