{"id":31785,"date":"2008-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-24T03:54:37","modified_gmt":"2017-11-23T22:24:37","slug":"devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\/9451\/2008\t 15\/ 17\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 9451 of 2008\n \n\nWITH\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 9452 of 2008\n \n\nTO\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 9486 of 2008 \n\n \n\nWITH\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 9488 of 2008\n \n\nTO\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 9509 of 2008  \n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit  is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nDEVENDRAPRASAD\nBHAGWANJI PANDYA - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nIH SYED for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR RC KODEKAR ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nRespondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n\n\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t  \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.RC Kodekar, learned Additional
\n\tPublic Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on
\n\tbehalf of the respondent   State.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt
\n\tthe request of the learned  advocates appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespective parties, all these matters are taken up for final hearing
\n\ttoday.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\n\tall these applications are preferred by common petitioner – accused
\n\twith respect to different similar criminal complaint\/cases filed
\n\tagainst him, they are being heard together and disposed of by this
\n\tcommon order.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll
\n\tthese applications are filed by the petitioner   original accused
\n\tnamed Devendraprasad Bhagwanji Pandya –  the then  Managing Director
\n\tand Chief Executive officer ( CEO  for convenience)   of
\n\tMadhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited, under sec.439 of
\n\tthe Code of Criminal Procedure  for releasing him on bail in
\n\tconnection with the complaints\/cases being M.Case Nos.5\/02, 6\/02,
\n\t7\/02, 8\/02, 9\/02, 10\/02, 11\/02, 12\/02,  14\/02, 15\/02, 16\/02, 17\/02,
\n\t8\/03, 24\/04, 31\/04, 32\/04, 33\/04, 34\/04, 38\/04, 41\/04, 207\/04,
\n\t321\/04, 363\/04, 364\/04 366\/04, 372\/04, 375\/04, 376\/04, 377\/04,
\n\t379\/04, 394\/04, 397\/04, 414\/04, 1\/05, 2\/05 9\/05, 29\/05,  44\/05,
\n\t108\/05, 115\/05, 148\/05, 187\/05, 198\/05, 202\/05, 203\/05, 207\/05,
\n\t210\/05, 212\/05, 213\/05, 214\/05, 219\/05, 220\/05, 257\/05, 535\/05,
\n\t536\/05, 107\/06, 121\/06 and 104\/07  for the offences punishable under
\n\tsecs.406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and  120B of Indian
\n\tPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tcase of the prosecution is that the petitioner being the Managing
\n\tDirector and C.E.O. of Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank
\n\tLimited, in connivance with the  other accused indulged in large
\n\tscale irregularities in sanctioning loans of crores of rupees
\n\tleaving aside the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Reserve
\n\tBank of India and creating forged documents and  consequently the
\n\taforesaid bank failed and gone into liquidation affecting large
\n\tnumber of small depositors and other small co-operative banks and
\n\tthereby committed offences as alleged,  for which different
\n\tcomplaints came to be lodged with CID Crime, Gandhinagar, Zone
\n\tPolice Station, Prevention  of Economic Offences, Gandhinagar,
\n\tMadhupura Police Station and Ellisbridge Police Station,  for the
\n\toffences punishable under secs.406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468,
\n\t471 and  120B of Indian Penal Code
\n\tof Indian Penal Code. The
\n\tpetitioner has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid
\n\tcriminal cases\/complaints and is in judicial custody and therefore,
\n\tthe petitioner submitted various applications before the Additional
\n\tSessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad u\/s.439 of the Code of
\n\tCriminal Procedure, for releasing him on bail in connection with the
\n\taforesaid Criminal Cases\/complaints. Vide order dtd.17\/1\/2007, the
\n\tlearned Additional sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad rejected
\n\tall the applications submitted by the petitioner for bail and hence
\n\tthe petitioner has preferred all these petitions u\/s.439 of the Code
\n\tof Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.I.A.\n<\/p>\n
\tSaiyed, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the  petitioner has
\n\tvehemently submitted that initially  only one complaint being CR
\n\tNo.67 of 2001 was registered and the petitioner was arrested in
\n\tconnection with the said offence on 26\/4\/2001 and thereafter the
\n\tsaid complaint was sent to CBI for investigation and the CBI
\n\tregistered the same as RC4E and thereafter the petitioner was
\n\treleased in connection with the said offence on 7\/12\/2001. It is
\n\tsubmitted that thereafter aforesaid various complaints came to be
\n\tfiled and again the petitioner came to be arrested in connection
\n\twith the said complaints.  It is submitted that  during the
\n\taforesaid period on bail, the petitioner has not misused the liberty
\n\tgranted to him and there are no  allegation of tampering against the
\n\tpetitioner. It is also further submitted by Mr.Saiyed, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that  so far as other
\n\taccused, who are loanees\/guarantors are concerned, they are released
\n\ton bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is
\n\trequired to be released on bail. It is also further submitted by
\n\tMr.Saiyed that in fact, being Managing Director and Managing
\n\tDirector and Chief Executive Officer ( CEO  for short), the
\n\tpetitioner had a very limited role in sanctioning the loan and as
\n\tsuch he was paid employee and the petitioner had no authority to
\n\tsanction\/disburse the loan and therefore, the petitioner is required
\n\tto be released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tRelying
\n\tupon the communication dtd.31\/5\/2005 addressed by the Chief
\n\tExecutive Officer of the Bank to the Chief General Manager of the
\n\tRBI, it is submitted that the bank had field the aforesaid criminal
\n\tcases\/complaints as the management could not recover the dues and
\n\teven as per the Bank the defaults on the part of the borrowers can
\n\tbe deemed to be on the border of criminality. It is submitted that
\n\tthe aforesaid was the reason to file different complaints.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Saiyed,
\n\tlearned advocate appearing on behalf of the  petitioner has further
\n\tsubmitted that even sons and relatives of the petitioner had repaid
\n\tthe loan taken by them. It is also further submitted that even the
\n\tapplication submitted by the bank to join the Managing Director  as
\n\tparty in the Lavad Suit, is also came to be rejected and therefore
\n\talso the petitioner is required to be released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis also further submitted by Mr.Saiyed, learned advocate appearing
\n\ton behalf of the  petitioner that  the petitioner is in jail since
\n\tlast more than five years and since more than three months form the
\n\tdate of framing of the charge against the petitioner and there is no
\n\tpossibility to conclude the trial in near future and therefore, it
\n\tis requested to release the petitioner on bail.  It is also further
\n\tsubmitted that  at the most it can be said that the petitioner, as a
\n\tManaging Director, has misused his position, however, it cannot be
\n\tsaid that the petitioner has committed any offence much less the
\n\talleged offence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis also further submitted that in one another case being Criminal
\n\tCase No.5319 of 2003 in which the allegations were made against the
\n\tpetitioner similar to the allegations made in the present
\n\tcomplaints, the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Chief
\n\tJudicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural  vide judgement and order
\n\tdtd.8\/4\/2008 and therefore, it is requested to release the
\n\tpetitioner on bail, as according to the learned advocate appearing
\n\ton behalf of the  petitioner, there is no possibility of conviction
\n\tin the aforesaid criminal complaints\/cases in question.  By making
\n\tabove submissions it is requested to release the petitioner on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll
\n\tthese applications are opposed by Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned
\n\tAdditional Public Prosecutor
\n\tfor the State.  It is submitted by him that the petitioner at the
\n\trelevant time was holding the key post of Managing Director and CEO
\n\tand he, along with the Chairman and other Directors and office
\n\tbearers of the Bank,  indulged into large scale irregularities in
\n\tsanctioning loans running into crores of rupees, leaving aside the
\n\tnorms and guidelines prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and
\n\teven the allegations are that  the securities\/documents were got up
\n\t and forged, as a result of which the aforesaid bank failed and gone
\n\tinto liquidation affecting large number of small depositors and
\n\tother small co-operative banks and therefore, it is submitted that
\n\tlooking to the  role attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner is
\n\tnot required to be released on bail. It is further submitted by him
\n\tthat some of the loanees and\/or guarantors are released on bail on
\n\tcondition to deposit the entire loan amount. It is submitted that
\n\tthe case of the petitioner is distinguishable  than that of the
\n\tloanees and\/or guarantors who are released on bail. It is submitted
\n\tthat the petitioner and the Chairman of the Bank are prime accused
\n\tand their case cannot be compared with other accused  persons. It is
\n\tfurther submitted that merely because the petitioner was earlier
\n\treleased on bail prior to filing of the present complaints and while
\n\ton bail in that offence, he did not misuse the liberty, the same is
\n\tno the ground for releasing the petitioner on bail in the present
\n\tcomplaints which are filed subsequently and  which are grave and
\n\tserious in nature. It is further submitted that looking to the
\n\tseriousness and gravity of the offences alleged against the
\n\tpetitioner, the petitioner is not required to be released on bail.
\n\tIt is submitted that having a prima facie case found against the
\n\tpetitioner, chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner. It is
\n\tfurther submitted that the Chairman of the Bank, who was also one of
\n\tthe accused, has expired and therefore, now the petitioner is the
\n\tonly prime accused who has survived. It is also further submitted
\n\tthat the petitioner cannot be released on bail looking to the
\n\tserious and grave charge against him solely on the ground that there
\n\tmight be delay in trial.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis submitted by Mr.Kodekar, learned Additional
\n\tPublic Prosecutor for the State   that so far as the reliance
\n\tplaced by the  learned advocate for the petitioner, upon the
\n\tjudgement of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural
\n\tin Criminal Case No.5319 of 2003 acquitting the petitioner, is
\n\tconcerned,  every case is required to be considered and decided on
\n\tthe basis of the appreciation of the evidence on record and  merely
\n\tbecause learned trial court has acquitted the petitioner in one
\n\toffence, the same is no ground to release the  petitioner on bail in
\n\tall these offences, as the facts and evidence of the present
\n\tcomplaints are different and it cannot be presumed that in these
\n\tcases also the petitioner would be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Kodekar,
\n\tlearned Additional Public
\n\tProsecutor  for the State relying upon the decisions in the
\n\tcase of (i) Kalyan Chandra
\n\tSarkar v\/s. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. reported
\n\tin (2004) 7 SCC 528
\n\tand (ii) in the case of State
\n\tthrough C.B.I. V\/s. Amarmani Tripati reported in (2005) 8 SCC
\n\t21,
\n\t it is submitted that while considering the application for bail
\n\tcourt is required to consider nature  of accusation and severity of
\n\tpunishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence.
\n\tSubmitting accordingly, it is requested to dismiss all these
\n\tapplications.\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard
\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the  respective
\n\tparties.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving
\n\theard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
\n\tparties  and considering the material on record, it is required to
\n\tbe noted that the petitioner is involved in multi crores scam, as a
\n\tresult of which  one Bank had gone into liquidation and thousands of
\n\tsmall depositors, small co-operative banks  and the entire
\n\tcooperative sectors in  the State of Gujarat are adversely affected.
\n\tAt the relevant time the petitioner was CEO of the Madhavpura
\n\tMercantile Co-operative Bank Limited. The allegations against the
\n\tpetitioner, Chairman and others are with respect of  sanctioning and
\n\tdisbursing the loan of crores of rupees by indulging into
\n\tillegalities, irregularities  and thereby they have committed
\n\tmalpractices, the loans came to be sanctioned either without proper
\n\tverification and\/or deliberately ignoring the norms and guidelines
\n\tof the RBI and even the documents \/ securities were not obtained
\n\tand\/or if the same were obtained, the same were concocted and\/or
\n\tfabricated. Considering overall aspects of the matter, it cannot be
\n\tsaid that there was only negligence on the part of the Managing
\n\tDirector. The post of Managing Director and CEO  in the Bank is the
\n\tvery important and key post  so far as transaction of sanctioning of
\n\tloan in favour of loanees is concerned. The involvement of the
\n\tpetitioner as Managing Director and CEO is prima facie established.
\n\tThe allegation and accusation against the petitioner  are very
\n\tserious and grave. Number of complaints are filed against the
\n\tpetitioner and the petitioner is arrested in  each of the
\n\tcomplaints. The learned Additional
\n\tPublic Prosecutor  for the State has relied upon the decision
\n\tof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Kalyan
\n\tChandra Sarkar v\/s. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr.
\n\t(Supra)  and it is submitted that while considering the bail
\n\tapplication the court is required to consider the nature of
\n\taccusation and seriousness of the offence alleged against the
\n\taccused person and the punishment prescribed for such offence  in
\n\tcase of conviction and  the involvement of the accused as high
\n\tranking officer as Managing Director and CEO of the Bank  and
\n\tagainst whom serious and grave allegations are made, is not
\n\trequired to be released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tthe case of State through
\n\tC.B.I. V\/s. Amarmani Tripati (supra), the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court has  held that  while granting or refusing the bail,
\n\tthe court is required to consider that (i)
\n\tWhether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
\n\tthat the accused had committed the offence (ii)  nature and gravity
\n\tof the charge (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
\n\tconviction (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if
\n\treleased on bail (v) character, behaviour, means, position and
\n\tstanding fleeing, if released on bail (vi) likelihood of the offence
\n\tbeing repeated (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
\n\ttampered with and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being
\n\tthwarted by grant of bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tLooking
\n\tto the allegations and material on record, it appears that there is
\n\tprima facie case against the petitioner and allegations are serious
\n\tof grave offence. In the case of Anwari
\n\tBegum v\/s. Sher Mohammad and Anr . reported in
\n\t(2005) 7 SCC 326, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
\n\tobserved that  though  detailed examination of the evidence and
\n\telaborate taking into consideration the merits of the case is to be
\n\tavoided by the Court while  passing orders on  bail application yet
\n\tthe court dealing with the bail application  have to satisfy as to
\n\twhether there is a prima facie case, but exploration of the merits
\n\tof the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application
\n\tfor bail is required to be exercised its discretion in a judicious
\n\tmanner and not as a matter of course.\n<\/p>\n
\tNow
\n\tso far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that he is in
\n\tcustody since long and more than 3 months are passed after framing
\n\tof the charge and the trial  is not concluded and there is no
\n\tpossibility in the near future to conclude the trial and therefore,
\n\the should be released on bail, is concerned,  in the case of Rajesh
\n\tRanjan Vs. Pappu Yadav, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\n\tthat merely because the accused has undergone certain period of
\n\tcustody by itself would not entitle the accused being enlarged on
\n\tbail nor the fact that the trial court is not likely to be concluded
\n\tin near future by itself or the
\n\tperiod of incarceration would not be sufficient for enlarging the
\n\tappellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe.\n<\/p>\n
\tNow,
\n\tso far as the contention  on behalf of the petitioner that when
\n\tearlier the petitioner was released on bail, there was no allegation
\n\tof tampering  and\/or misusing the liberty by the petitioner and
\n\ttherefore, he is required to be released on bail, is concerned, it
\n\tis required to be noted that earlier when the petitioner was
\n\treleased on bail, present complaints were not filed and the present
\n\tcomplaints are filed subsequently, and thereafter, the  petitioner
\n\thas been arrested in connection with the aforesaid complaints in
\n\tquestion. What is required to be considered  while deciding the bail
\n\tapplication is the nature of the accusation in the present
\n\tcomplaints and merely because when earlier the petitioner was
\n\treleased on bail in another case and  the petitioner has not misused
\n\tthe liberty, the same is no ground to release the petitioner on bail
\n\tin the present complaints which are filed subsequently and the
\n\tpresent complaints are required to be considered independently and
\n\ttherefore on the said ground, the petitioner is not required to be
\n\treleased on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tNow,
\n\tthe contention on behalf of the petitioner  that other co-accused
\n\tare released on bail and therefore, he should be released on bail is
\n\tconcerned, it is required to be noted that all other accused who are
\n\treleased on bail by this Court are, either loanees or guarantor and
\n\tthey are released on bail on condition to deposit the entire loan
\n\tamount and so far as the  present  petitioner is concerned he was
\n\tManaging Director and CEO of the Bank and  has indulged into large
\n\tscale irregularities, illegalities and muti-crores scam in different
\n\ttransactions and cases and therefore, his case cannot be compared
\n\twith other accused persons who were loanees\/guarantors. The
\n\tpetitioner is one of the prime accused and on account of the acts of
\n\tthe petitioner, the bank has gone into liquidation and even  other
\n\tsmall co-operative banks are also adversely affected. Under the
\n\tcircumstances, merely because some other accused persons, who are
\n\tloanees or guarantors, are released on bail, the petitioner cannot
\n\tbe released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tNow,
\n\tso far as the contention on behalf of the learned advocate appearing
\n\ton behalf of the  petitioner that in one similar case the petitioner
\n\thas been acquitted and therefore, the petitioner  should be released
\n\ton bail is concerned, considering the judgement and order of
\n\tacquittal in another case, it appears that on appreciation  of
\n\tevidence of that case, the learned trial court has acquitted the
\n\taccused inclusive of the petitioner. Each complaint and criminal
\n\tcase are required to be considered independently on the basis of
\n\tevidence on record and merely because the petitioner is acquitted in
\n\tanother case, it cannot be presumed that there is no evidence in the
\n\tpresent complaints and the petitioner will be acquitted in all the
\n\tthe aforesaid complaints\/criminal cases in question. Therefore, on
\n\tthat ground also, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tUnder
\n\t the circumstances, looking to the accusation and gravity of the
\n\toffence and considering the charges levelled against the petitioner
\n\tand the fact that the petitioner being Managing Director and CEO of
\n\tthe Bank,  in connivance with the Chairman and others indulged into
\n\tlarge scale irregularities and illegalities in sanctioning the loans
\n\tand most of the loanees are his sons, near relatives and family
\n\tmembers, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\n\tthe reasons stated above, as there is strong prima facie case
\n\tagainst the petitioner, the trial court has rightly refused to
\n\trelease the petitioner on bail. Under the circumstances, all these
\n\tapplications fail and are required to be rejected and are
\n\taccordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
rafik<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/9451\/2008 15\/ 17 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 9451 of 2008 WITH CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 9452 of 2008 TO CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 9486 of 2008 WITH CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION […]<\/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-31785","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDevendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-23T22:24:37+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-23T22:24:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2979,\"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\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-23T22:24:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-23T22:24:37+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-23T22:24:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008"},"wordCount":2979,"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\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","name":"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-23T22:24:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendraprasad-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devendraprasad vs State on 23 September, 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:\/\/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\/31785","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=31785"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31785\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31785"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31785"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31785"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}