{"id":48429,"date":"2008-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-14T15:45:55","modified_gmt":"2018-01-14T10:15:55","slug":"vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/1899\/2008\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \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. 1899 of 2008\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n=========================================================\n<\/pre>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Whether<br \/>\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    <\/p>\n<pre>\n\t\t\t                  \n\t\t\tYES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span>\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?     YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span>\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tNO<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Whether<br \/>\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the<br \/>\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order<br \/>\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t NO<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Whether<br \/>\n\t\t\tit is to  be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tNO  <\/p>\n<p>=========================================================<\/p>\n<p>VINOD<br \/>\nRAJABHAI MAKWANA &#8211; Applicant(s)<\/p>\n<p>Versus<\/p>\n<p>STATE<br \/>\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s)<\/p>\n<p>=========================================================<\/p>\n<p>Appearance<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<p>MR<br \/>\nHASMUKH C PATEL for<br \/>\nApplicant<br \/>\nMR DIPEN DESAI APP for<br \/>\nRespondents<br \/>\n=========================================================<\/p>\n<p>CORAM<br \/>\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n<p>HONOURABLE<br \/>\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH<\/p>\n<p>Date<br \/>\n: 12\/11\/2008 <\/p>\n<p>C.A.V.JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Present<br \/>\n\tapplication is filed by the applicant ?  original accused of<br \/>\n\tcomplaint being CR No.I-54 of 2007 registered with Kamlabaug Police<br \/>\n\tStation, Porbandar for the offences punishable under sections 302,<br \/>\n\t397 of Indian Penal Code  r\/w sec.135 of the Bombay Police Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Hasmukh<br \/>\n\tPatel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the  applicant   &#8211;<br \/>\n\toriginal accused has submitted that the prayer of the applicant for<br \/>\n\treleasing him on bail is only under sec.167(2) of the Code of<br \/>\n\tCriminal Procedure i.e. default bail, on the ground that<br \/>\n\tchargesheet has not been filed by the investigating officer within<br \/>\n\t90 days from the date of his arrest. He has submitted that he does<br \/>\n\tmake any submission on merits except that as the chargesheet is not<br \/>\n\tfiled within 90 days,  the  applicant is entitled to be released on<br \/>\n\tdefault bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis submitted that admittedly the applicant &#8211; accused was in custody<br \/>\n\tsince 19\/5\/2007 and as the chargesheet was not submitted within 90<br \/>\n\tdays from 19\/5\/2007, the applicant submitted application before the<br \/>\n\tChief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar on 21\/8\/2007 for releasing him<br \/>\n\ton bail considering sec.167(2)A of the Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\n\tand the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, even without issuing any<br \/>\n\tnotice to the Public Prosecutor,  by the impugned order<br \/>\n\tdtd.21\/8\/2007, dismissed the said application. He has also relied<br \/>\n\tupon the following decisions in support of his prayer to release him<br \/>\n\ton bail under sec.167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:-\n<\/p>\n<p>AIR<br \/>\n\t2002 S.C. 285 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Mrs.Bharti Chandmal Varma<br \/>\n\talias Ayesh Khan).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2001) 5 S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t453 (Uday Mohanlal Acharya).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2001 Criminal<br \/>\n\tLaw Journal 3876 (Babubhai Bhimjibhai Kachadiya Vs. State of<br \/>\n\tGujarat) and <\/p>\n<p>\t(2007) 8 S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t770 (Dinesh Dalmia Vs. CBI).\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tapplication is opposed by Mr.Dipen Desai, learned Additional Public<br \/>\n\tProsecutor for the State. It is submitted that in fact the<br \/>\n\tchargesheet was presented\/submitted before the learned Chief<br \/>\n\tJudicial Magistrate on 23\/7\/2007.  However, the learned Chief<br \/>\n\tJudicial Magistrate, Porbandar did not accept the chargesheet  on<br \/>\n\trecord and returned the same  to the investigating officer on the<br \/>\n\tground that the said chargesheet is defective inasmuch as the  FSL<br \/>\n\tReport is not produced along with the chargesheet papers. It is<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the mistake was committed by the learned Chief<br \/>\n\tJudicial Magistrate in returning the chargesheet on the ground that<br \/>\n\tit is defective as FSL Report is not produced. However, FSL Report<br \/>\n\tcan be produced subsequently and it is not that along with the<br \/>\n\tchargesheet papers FSL Report is  required to be produced. It is<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the said mistake came to be corrected by the learned<br \/>\n\tChief Judicial Magistrate having realised that when the chargesheet<br \/>\n\tis not submitted along with the FSL Report, the same can not be said<br \/>\n\tto be defective chargesheet and that as per the circular issued by<br \/>\n\tthe Sessions Court, documentary evidences are required to be<br \/>\n\tconsidered at the time of committal of the case  and therefore the<br \/>\n\tapplication of the applicant for releasing him on bail under<br \/>\n\tsec.167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rightly rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Dipen<br \/>\n\tDesai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has<br \/>\n\tfurther submitted that in fact, it is not that chargesheet  was not<br \/>\n\tpresented at all within 90 days. However, the learned Chief Judicial<br \/>\n\tMagistrate, in utter ignorance of law and the procedure, returned<br \/>\n\tthe chargesheet to the investigating officer on the ground that it<br \/>\n\tis defective chargesheet, as the FSL Report was  not produced along<br \/>\n\twith the chargesheet papers and therefore, there was no fault on the<br \/>\n\tpart of the investigating officer in submitting the chargesheet<br \/>\n\twithin 90 days and therefore, the  benefit of the mistake of the<br \/>\n\tCourt should not go to the accused. Thus, when the chargesheet was<br \/>\n\tproduced on 23\/7\/2007 i.e. within 90 days from the date of arrest,<br \/>\n\tthe same can be said to be sufficient compliance so as to deny the<br \/>\n\tbenefit of default bail under sec.167 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\n\tProcedure and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present<br \/>\n\tapplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>Present<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has prayed to release him on  default bail under<br \/>\n\tsec.167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitting that the<br \/>\n\tinvestigating officer had not submitted the chargesheet within 90<br \/>\n\tdays from the date of his arrest. It is required to be noted that in<br \/>\n\tfact, chargesheet was submitted by the investigating officer before<br \/>\n\tthe Chief Judicial Magistrate within 90 days from 19\/5\/2007, more<br \/>\n\tparticularly on 23\/7\/2007, however, the learned Chief Judicial<br \/>\n\tMagistrate, Porbandar did not accept the chargesheet and return the<br \/>\n\tsame to the investigating officer on the ground that the same is<br \/>\n\tdefective inasmuch as the FSL Report was not produced along with the<br \/>\n\tchargesheet. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have<br \/>\n\tappreciated that the submission of the chargesheet in absence of FSL<br \/>\n\tReport, can not be said to be defective chargesheet as the FSL<br \/>\n\tReport can be produced subsequently  even during the course of trial<br \/>\n\tand even considering the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\n\tFSL Report can be exhibited straightway. Under the circumstances,<br \/>\n\tthe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar   committed an<br \/>\n\terror in not accepting the chargesheet submitted on 23\/7\/2007.<br \/>\n\tHowever, the question is whether the benefit of the error committed<br \/>\n\tby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should be given to the<br \/>\n\taccused or not. It cannot be disputed that an act of Court shall<br \/>\n\tprejudice no man ?Sactus curiae neminem gravabit?? Under<br \/>\n\tthe circumstances, when, in fact, the chargesheet was submitted<br \/>\n\tbefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within 90 days, the<br \/>\n\tobligation on the part of the investigating officer to submit the<br \/>\n\tchargesheet within 90 days, was over  and it cannot be  said that<br \/>\n\tfor the purpose of attracting sec.167(2) of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\n\tProcedure, chargesheet was not submitted with in 90 days and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, it cannot be said that the chargesheet was not submitted<br \/>\n\tat all within 90 days. Under the circumstances, the contention on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of the petitioner that the chargesheet has not been submitted<br \/>\n\twithin 90 days and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be<br \/>\n\treleased on default bail, cannot be accepted. Once it is held that<br \/>\n\tthe chargesheet has been submitted within 90 days, the decision<br \/>\n\trelied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner referred to hereinabove, will not be of any assistance to<br \/>\n\thim, as in those cases, chargesheet was not submitted within 90 days<br \/>\n\tfrom the date of arrest of the accused. Under the circumstances, the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner is not required to be released on default bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\n\tthe reasons stated above, the petition fails and the same deserves<br \/>\n\tto be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n<p>rafik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/1899\/2008 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1899 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be [&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-48429","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>Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-14T10:15:55+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-14T10:15:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1205,\"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\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-14T10:15:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 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":"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-14T10:15:55+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-14T10:15:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008"},"wordCount":1205,"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\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008","name":"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-14T10:15:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinod-vs-state-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinod vs State on 12 November, 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\/48429","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=48429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48429\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}