{"id":72939,"date":"2010-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-16T01:58:23","modified_gmt":"2016-04-15T20:28:23","slug":"uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Uday vs State on 26 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Uday vs State on 26 August, 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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/3936\/2010\t 7\/ 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. 3936 of 2010\n \n\n \n======================================\n \n\nUDAY\nBHANUSHANKAR RAVAL - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n====================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR VIRENDRA BAHETI for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR LR POOJARI APP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR B\nB NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MR PARTHIV A BHATT for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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 \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\nH.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/08\/2010  \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpresent application has been filed by the petitioner under section<br \/>\n\t482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (&#8216;Code&#8217;, for short) for<br \/>\n\tquashing the First Information Report being I-C.R.No.146 of 2010<br \/>\n\tregistered with Junagadh City &#8220;B&#8221; Division Police<br \/>\n\tStation for offences under sections 376 (2) (a) (i) (ii), 376(2)\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b), 506(2) and 323 of Indian Penal Code on the grounds set out in<br \/>\n\tdetail in the memo of petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tcounsel Mr.Baheti for the petitioner has referred to the First<br \/>\n\tInformation Report annexed at Annexure- &#8220;A&#8221; and<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the complaint was earlier given on dated 31st<br \/>\n\tJanuary, 2009 for the similar allegations about her exploitation<br \/>\n\twhen the husband was involved in a case which has been registered as<br \/>\n\tN.C. complaint.  Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that once the complaint has been registered as NC<br \/>\n\tcomplaint, the second First Information Report would not be<br \/>\n\tpermissible in law. He, therefore, submitted and emphasized that the<br \/>\n\tFirst Information Report is dated 24.03.2010 and the offence is<br \/>\n\talleged to have been committed during the period from 22.08.2007 to<br \/>\n\t28.01.2009, and, therefore, it is an abuse of the process of law. He<br \/>\n\talso referred to Annexure-&#8220;B&#8221;, which is a fax-message<br \/>\n\tdated 23.11.2008 and emphasized that it cannot be said to be an<br \/>\n\toffence alleged. He has also submitted referring to provisions of<br \/>\n\tsection 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code that complainant cannot be<br \/>\n\tsaid to be in his custody and also cannot within local limits of his<br \/>\n\tjurisdiction, and, therefore, this provision would not be attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tcounsel Mr.Baheti referred to the order passed by this Court dated<br \/>\n\t16.04.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3373 of 2010<br \/>\n\twith regard to cancellation of a bail filed against the present<br \/>\n\tapplicant and submitted that it prima facie records<br \/>\n\tthat it cannot be said to be an offence under section 376<br \/>\n\tof the Code. He has also referred to and relied on the judgment<br \/>\n\treported in AIR 1992 SC<br \/>\n\t604 in<br \/>\n\tthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1033637\/\">State<br \/>\n\tof Haryana and others vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others and<\/a><br \/>\n\tsubmitted that guidelines have been laid down. Therefore,  the<br \/>\n\tmatter may be admitted and further investigation qua the present<br \/>\n\tcomplaint may be stayed. He has also referred to the judgment<br \/>\n\treported in AIR<br \/>\n\t1988 SC 709 in<br \/>\n\tthe case of Madhavrao<br \/>\n\tJiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre<br \/>\n\tand others<br \/>\n\t  to<br \/>\n\temphasize the observation made in para-7 that if the process of law<br \/>\n\tis abused, the Court may interfere. He has also referred to judgment<br \/>\n\treported in 2008<br \/>\n\t(8) SCC 77 in<br \/>\n\tthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1651721\/\">Baijnath<br \/>\n\tJha vs. Sita Ram and<\/a> another and<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that if the complaint is mala<br \/>\n\tfide on<br \/>\n\tvague assertions and filed due to private and personal grudge, it<br \/>\n\twould amount to abuse of process of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Poojari,<br \/>\n\tlearned Additional Public Prosecutor referred to the First<br \/>\n\tInformation Report and submitted that  First Information Report<br \/>\n\titself discloses the cognizance offence. He submitted that entire<br \/>\n\tcircumstances are required to be considered that when the<br \/>\n\tinvestigation was not properly done and the petitioner<br \/>\n\twho is Investigating Officer in a case where the husband of the<br \/>\n\tcomplainant was involved, he had created a situation that she was<br \/>\n\tput to helpless condition and thereafter exploited her. He,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, submitted that by creating the circumstances she was put<br \/>\n\tunder pressure and forced to surrender to the demand of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner. Therefore, the investigation may not be stayed at this<br \/>\n\tstage. He has also referred to and relied on the judgment of the<br \/>\n\tHon&#8217;ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 in<br \/>\n\tcase of State of Haryana<br \/>\n\tand others (supra) and<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that parameters of guidelines are well settled that once<br \/>\n\tthe First Information Report itself discloses offence, the Court may<br \/>\n\tnot intervene. He has also produced the papers of the investigation<br \/>\n\tto emphasize that when the complainant was admitted in the hospital<br \/>\n\tfor an abortion, the present petitioner has treated and signed the<br \/>\n\tpapers as husband. In the aforesaid circumstances, he, submitted<br \/>\n\tthat, present petition may not be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.B.B.Naik,<br \/>\n\tlearned senior counsel appearing for original complainant-respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 has referred to the papers and the report dated 13.1.2009.<br \/>\n\tReferring to pages-26 and 27 of the report learned senior counsel<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that 1800 SMS received between the petitioner and<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2. He has also submitted that she was induced by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner to have relationship by creating such circumstance that<br \/>\n\twould render her helpless. He, therefore, submitted that entire<br \/>\n\tcircumstances may be considered and considering the guidelines laid<br \/>\n\tdown in Bhjanlal &#8216;s case (supra), the Court may not stop the<br \/>\n\tinvestigation at this stage. Learned senior counsel emphasized<br \/>\n\tand submitted that once the First Information Report under section<br \/>\n\t154 of the Cr.P.C.  is registered disclosing the cognizance offence<br \/>\n\tprima facie, investigation has to be permitted to be completed<br \/>\n\texcept in some exceptional cases. He, therefore, submitted that<br \/>\n\tpresent case does not fall within exceptional cases and therefore<br \/>\n\tpresent application may not be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tlight of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether<br \/>\n\tit calls for any interference. It is well accepted that the scope of<br \/>\n\tdiscretion under section 482 of the Code is required to be<br \/>\n\tconsidered and exercised with utmost care and circumspection as laid<br \/>\n\tdown in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1033637\/\">State of<br \/>\n\tHaryana and others vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others<\/a> reported<br \/>\n\tin AIR 1992 SC 604<br \/>\n\twith their perception<br \/>\n\twherein guidelines are well settled in this regard. However,<br \/>\n\tconsidering the facts as disclosed in the First Information Report<br \/>\n\tand the entire records which have been brought including the<br \/>\n\tfax-message at Annexure-B and also the papers produced by learned<br \/>\n\tAPP today much emphasizing that the petitioner had introduced<br \/>\n\thimself as husband when the complainant respondent No.2 was admitted<br \/>\n\tin the hospital for abortion of the child conceived out of illicit<br \/>\n\trelationship of the petitioner and complainant-original respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 whether would amount to such offence alleged as the Court is<br \/>\n\tnot required to consider the merits and de-merits<br \/>\n\tand whether there are evidences and whether it would be a case<br \/>\n\tresulting in a conviction or not, as it will be depend upon the<br \/>\n\tfacts in each case. At the same time, it is required to be stated<br \/>\n\tthat as it transpires from the fax-message at Annexure-B as well as<br \/>\n\tother records including the papers of Nursing Home collected during<br \/>\n\tthe investigation that respondent No.2 had illicit relationship<br \/>\n\tresulting in pregnancy and as it is stated with regard to SMS and<br \/>\n\tshe had sent SMS to higher authorities and her attempt for suicide,<br \/>\n\tthese reflect even the relationship which she had developed with the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner and in fact the family of the respondent No.2 had not<br \/>\n\tliked. It is another thing that the petitioner had promised her and<br \/>\n\tthereafter dispute started regarding accepting her as a wife. It is,<br \/>\n\tat this stage, the relationship may have spoiled resulting in this<br \/>\n\tcomplaint, and, therefore, without much elaboration, the conduct of<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner as a police officer may not be justified or may<br \/>\n\tentail other consequences including the departmental proceedings but<br \/>\n\tprima facie considering<br \/>\n\tthe material the Court is of the opinion that the present petition<br \/>\n\tdeserves to be admitted and it requires consideration. With regard<br \/>\n\tto aspect of inducement and exploitation of the petitioner, as is<br \/>\n\tdisclosed that she herself is said to have indulged in such<br \/>\n\trelationship for a long time. Therefore, without any further<br \/>\n\telaboration, the following order is passed:\n<\/p>\n<p>RULE<br \/>\n\treturnable on 24th<br \/>\n\tSeptember, 2010. In the meanwhile, interim relief, in terms of<br \/>\n\tpara-12(B) is granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>[R.H.SHUKLA,<br \/>\nJ.]<\/p>\n<p>Amit\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Uday vs State on 26 August, 2010 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/3936\/2010 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3936 of 2010 ====================================== UDAY BHANUSHANKAR RAVAL &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) ====================================== Appearance : [&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-72939","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>Uday vs State on 26 August, 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\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uday vs State on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-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=\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-15T20:28:23+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\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Uday vs State on 26 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T20:28:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1256,\"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\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Uday vs State on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T20:28:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Uday vs State on 26 August, 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":"Uday vs State on 26 August, 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\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uday vs State on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-15T20:28:23+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\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Uday vs State on 26 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T20:28:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010"},"wordCount":1256,"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\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010","name":"Uday vs State on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T20:28:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uday-vs-state-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Uday vs State on 26 August, 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\/72939","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=72939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}