{"id":77122,"date":"2011-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-10T11:42:35","modified_gmt":"2018-06-10T06:12:35","slug":"bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Md 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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/1\/2011\t 12\/ 12\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. 1 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 164 of 2011\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBHAVESHBHAI\nMANUBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n:\n \n\n Cri.Misc.Appln.No.1\nof 2011\n \n\nMR CHIRAG\nB PATEL for\nApplicant \nMR JM PANCHAL, SPL.PP for Respondent No.1 \nMR MM\nTIRMIZI for respondent No.1                                          \nMR ASIFKHAN I PATHAN for Respondent No.2 \nMR KG MENON, SR.ADV. with\nAJAYKUMAR CHOKSI with                                     MR VAIBHAV\nA VYAS for Respondent No.3\n \n\n Cri.Misc.Appln.No.164\nof 2011\n \n\nMR\nBS PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR JM PANCHAL, SPL.PP for\nRespondent No.1 \nMR ASIFKHAN I PATHAN for Respondent(s) : 2, \nMR\nKG MENON, SR.ADV. with AJAYKUMAR CHOKSI with                         \n           MR VAIBHAV A VYAS for Respondent No.3\n \n\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 MD SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:  13\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\nCOMMON\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
These
\n\ttwo application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have
\n\tbeen filed for quashing  and setting aside order dated 4-6-2010
\n\tpassed below Exs.288 and 345 in Sessions Case No.44 of 2008 by the
\n\tlearned 2nd Additional District Judge, Anand, whereby the
\n\tpresent applicants were impleaded as accused under Section 319 of
\n\tthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in trial.\n<\/p>\n
Short
\n\tfacts are that a complaint was lodged before Khambholaj Police
\n\tStation by the respondent No.2-Rahanaben, D\/o Yusufbhai Yakubbhai
\n\tVohra  on 5-3-2008 about riots that broke out after the Godhra
\n\tincident. At the end of investigation, charge sheet was filed
\n\tagainst the accused without disclosing names of applicants. However,
\n\tsubsequently, in pursuance of stay of proceedings of ten criminal
\n\ttrial including the present case looking to the sensitivity of
\n\tGodhra riot case, investigation was entrusted to Special
\n\tInvestigation Team (‘SIT’ for short)  constituted by the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court. SIT started investigation and charge sheet was filed
\n\tagainst 37 accused including 7 absconding accused and trial
\n\tcommenced against 37 accused. During the course of trial and after
\n\tthe evidences of witnesses were recorded, applications Exs.288
\n\tand 345 have been filed by the
\n\tcomplainant in Sessions Case No.44 of 2008 on behalf of witnesses
\n\tseeking to join 13 proposed accused as accused. Upon hearing the
\n\tlearned advocates appearing for the respective parties, learned 2nd
\n\tAdditional District Judge, Anand, partly allowed both the
\n\tapplications joining the applicants as accused under Section 319
\n\tCr.P.C.  Being aggrieved by the said order, present applications
\n\thave been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tboth the applications arise out of common order passed by the
\n\tlearned Judge in same Sessions Case, both the applications were
\n\theard together and are being decided by this common judgemnt.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned advocate, Mr.B.S.Patel for the applicants, learned Special
\n\tPublic Prosecutor, Mr.J.M.Panchal for the respondent No.1,  learned
\n\tadvocate, Mr.M.M.Tirmizi, for the witnesses who have submitted the
\n\tapplications in the trial court, learned advocate, Mr.Asifkhan
\n\tI.Pathan for the respondent No.2 and learned Senior Advocate,
\n\tMr.K.G.Menon with learned advocates, Mr.Ajaykumar Choksi and
\n\tMr.Vaibhav A Vyas for the respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis submitted by learned advocate, Mr.B.S.Patel, for the applicants
\n\tthat though names of the present applicants were not disclosed by
\n\tthe witnesses in their earlier statements, they disclosed their
\n\tnames in Court without attributing any specific role with ulterior
\n\tmotive. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions
\n\tin the evidence of witnesses who disclosed names of the present
\n\tapplicants before the trial court leading to a conclusion that there
\n\tis no possibility of conviction and, therefore, the order passed by
\n\tthe trial court is bad in law and hence, requires to be quashed and
\n\tset aside. Mr.Patel has also submitted that when the offence was
\n\tregistered, names of the present applicants were not disclosed
\n\tbefore the Investigating Officer or before the SIT. However, after
\n\tlong lapse of more than 7-8 years, the witnesses have, for the first
\n\t time, disclosed before the Court the names of present applicants
\n\twith other  accused with ulterior motive. It is further submitted
\n\tthat  there was no pressure or fear or threat  for the witnesses to
\n\thave disclosed these things before the SIT. However, they did not
\n\tdisclose their names after long lapse of time but for the first time
\n\tdisclosed before the court while recording the evidence and,
\n\ttherefore, their evidence qua the present applicants should not be
\n\tbelieved but should be discarded at the threshold. The trial court
\n\thas committed a grave error in not considering these aspects and
\n\tallowing the applications.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis further submitted by Mr.Patel that applications were not
\n\tsubmitted by the State of Gujarat or the SIT but were presented by
\n\tthe witnesses in which endorsement was made by the Government
\n\tPleader, who was in charge of this case, which speaks volume about
\n\tthe ulterior motive of the witnesses in implicating the applicants
\n\twith the serious crime and, therefore also, the trial court has
\n\tcommitted grave error. It is further submitted that if it appears to
\n\tthe Court on perusing the applications submitted by the witnesses
\n\tthat some persons might have been involved in the crime and just for
\n\tsatisfying them, court cannot implead them as accused.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis further submitted by Mr.Patel that Zahira, who is the victim and
\n\twho has lost her father in the incident,  has specifically stated
\n\tthat present applicants are not involved in the crime which has not
\n\tbeen considered by the trial court. According to him, trial court
\n\thas committed a grave error in discarding the said statement. It is
\n\ttherefore requested that the impugned order passed by the trial
\n\tcourt requires to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
He
\n\thas relied on the following reported judgments:\n<\/p>\n
i)
\n\t(2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases page 182 in the case of Kailash
\n\tDwivedi Vs. State of M.P. and another;\n<\/p>\n
ii)(2005)12
\n\tSupreme Court Cases page 432 in the case of Kavuluri Vivekananda
\n\tReddy and another Vs. State of A.P. and another;\n<\/p>\n
iii)(2000)3
\n\tSupreme Court Cases page 262 in the case of Michael Machado and
\n\tanother Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another;\n<\/p>\n
iv)(2004)7
\n\tSupreme Court Cases page 792 in the case of Krishnappa Vs. State of
\n\tKarnataka;\n<\/p>\n
v)AIR
\n\t2008 Supreme Court page 1564 in the case of Kailash Vs. State of
\n\tRajasthan and another;\n<\/p>\n
vi)(2009)2
\n\tSupreme Court Cases page 696 in the case of Lal Suraj alias Suraj
\n\tSingh and another Vs. State of Jharkhand;\n<\/p>\n
vii)(2009)3
\n\tSupreme Court Cases page 329 in the case of Brindaben Das and others
\n\tVs. State of West Bengal;\n<\/p>\n
viii)(2009)16
\n\tSupreme Court Cases page 46 in the case of Sarabjit Singh and
\n\tanother Vs. State of Punjab and another;\n<\/p>\n
ix)
\n\t(2009)14 Supreme Court Cases page 25 in the case of Ram Singh and
\n\tOthers Vs. Ram Niwas and another; and<\/p>\n
x)2006
\n\tCri.L.J. Page 3538 in the case of Jagdish Vs. State and others.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tSpecial Public Prosecutor, Mr.J.M.Panchal for the respondent
\n\tNo.1-State and  learned Senior Advocate, Mr.K.G.Menon with learned
\n\tadvocates, Mr.Ajaykumar Choksi and Mr.Vaibhav A.Vyas, taking this
\n\tCourt through the affidavit filed by the State, have  supported the
\n\timpugned order passed by the trial court. Learned Senior Advocate,
\n\tMr.Menon, has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of
\n\tDahyabhai
\n\tTribhuvandas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported
\n\tin 2011
\n\tCri.L.J. Page 367
\n\tand urged to dismiss the
\n\tapplications.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tadvocate, Mr.M.M.Tirmizi,  who appears on behalf of the witnesses,
\n\twho have submitted the applications in the trial court, has taken
\n\tthis Court through various aspects of the case and submitted that
\n\tall the witnesses have narrated the incident in their own
\n\tperspective. He has brought to the notice of the Court that as per
\n\tthe depositions of other witnesses, Zahira  was not present at the
\n\tparticular place where incident is alleged to have taken place  and,
\n\ttherefore, at this juncture, deposition of Zahira would not be
\n\thelpful to the prosecution  and it can only be evaluated only while
\n\tdeciding the trial and according to him,  no illegality has been
\n\tcommitted by the trial court in the impugned order and hence, he
\n\talso urged for dismissal of these applications.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt has minutely gone through the impugned order passed the trial
\n\tcourt along with the evidence of witnesses recorded during the
\n\tcourse of trial as well as the judgments relied on by the learned
\n\tcounsel for the respective parties. There cannot any dispute
\n\tregarding the principles laid down in the judgments cited by the
\n\tlearned advocate for the parties. Keeping in mind the principles
\n\tlaid down therein, this Court proceeds further.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\twas found by the trial court that present case is not an ordinary
\n\tcase of riot or arsenal but one of the cases which has occurred in
\n\tthe aftermath of Godhra carnage in which three persons were burnt to
\n\tdeath and houses of several persons were put on fire. It is required
\n\tto be noted that in this case, 55 witnesses have already been
\n\texamined by the trial court including Investigating Officer and
\n\tafter evaluating the entire evidence of witnesses and other aspects,
\n\tthe trial court has passed the order. At this juncture, it is too
\n\tearly to come to any conclusion that because of some contradiction
\n\tin the evidence of witnesses, conviction is not likely to be imposed
\n\ton the present applicants.   All other aspects requiring
\n\tappreciation of evidence including the aspect as to whether evidence
\n\tof Zahira would be of helpful to any side or not can only be
\n\tevaluated at the end of trial. As stated above, this Court, at this
\n\tstage, cannot appreciate the evidence appearing on record in great
\n\tdetail. In view of the above, as the facts the present case are
\n\ttotally different from the facts of the cases cited by the learned
\n\tadvocate for the applicants, applicants would not be entitled to any
\n\tbenefit out of those judgments cited by their learned advocate.\n<\/p>\n
\tA
\n\tsubmission was also made by  learned advocate,
\n\tMr.B.S.Patel, for the applicants that in the case Dahyabhai
\n\tTribhuvandas Patel (supra),
\n\tcontradictions were not proved while in the present case,
\n\tcontradictions are proved through the depositions of Investigating
\n\tOfficer and, therefore, the ratio laid down in the said case will
\n\tnot be applicable to the facts of the present cases.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere
\n\tis no substance in this argument also as trial court has discussed
\n\tat great length the evidence on record and gave elaborate reasons as
\n\tto why names of the accused were not disclosed at the earlier stage
\n\tbut were involved thereafter. It was observed by the trial court
\n\tthat as other persons have not committed any overact but were simply
\n\tpresent in the mob, allegations against those persons were dismissed
\n\tand they were not arraigned as an accused. As far as this part of
\n\tobservations of trial court is concerned, neither the State nor the
\n\tSIT  has taken it further by challenging the same and, therefore,
\n\tthis Court is not expressing any opinion on these observations.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis pertinent to note that it was contended in the applications that
\n\tnames of applicants which have been disclosed in the evidence are
\n\tsuggestive of the fact that as the applicants had not agreed to part
\n\twith the money, just to bring pressure and teach lesson, names of
\n\tapplicants had been disclosed in the evidence. However, no such
\n\tsubmission has been made during the course of arguments.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\twas observed by the trial court in para 16 of the judgment that the
\n\tHon’ble Apex Court,  considering the aspects of fair trial and to
\n\tensure free deposition of witnesses, appointed SIT, issued
\n\tguidelines and directions which was indicative of the fact that
\n\tinvestigation conducted at the initial stage was not of that quality
\n\tso as to bring all the accused to books. It was further observed
\n\tthat considering the incident which had occurred in 2002, the
\n\twitnesses, who are victims of incident, must have been scared,
\n\tpetrified and frightened to state anything before the investigating
\n\tagency or to depose before the Court and even before the
\n\tS.I.T. sensing danger or the consequences of their statements at the
\n\tback of their minds and, therefore, it could be for those reasons
\n\tthat no statement was made implicating the persons as accused. It
\n\twas therefore held by the court below that naming the proposed
\n\taccused now cannot be said to be an improvement or unnatural act of
\n\tthe witnesses, but the witnesses might have mustered courage to
\n\tdepose before the Court and, therefore, submission raised by the
\n\tlearned advocate for the defence relying on improvement and the
\n\tcontradictions were not sustained. It was also further observed that
\n\tin order to see that no culprits escape from the trial and no
\n\tinnocent persons are wrongly arrayed by the Court, it became the
\n\tduty of the Court under section 319 of the Code to pass the impugned
\n\torder.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf
\n\tany application is submitted by any witness or the prosecution or by
\n\tany person to meet with the justice on feeling that names of persons
\n\twhose names were not disclosed in the charge sheet and who are the
\n\treal culprits are required to be prosecuted then Court can even suo
\n\tmotu take necessary steps for initiating action against them.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\ta similar fact situation, this Court in Dahyabhai
\n\tTribhuvandas Patel (supra) has held
\n\tin paras 12 and 13 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“12.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, the above directions have significant bearing on the role of
\n\tSIT in further
\n\tinvestigation of crime. Even if what is recorded in FIR and charge
\n\tsheets filed subsequent thereto are seen, it appears that it was not
\n\ta case of ordinary riot, but in the aftermath of Godhra incident,
\n\tmob in the town of Visnagar had indulged in arsoning and looting
\n\thouses of a particular community and eleven persons were brutally
\n\tkilled.  That issuance of directions by the Apex Court in the above
\n\tcase of National
\n\tHuman Rights Commission (supra),
\n\tis indicative of the fact that local investigation had failed to
\n\tbring the culprits on book.  The witnesses were scared,
\n\tpetrified and frightened to state anything before the investigating
\n\tagency or to depose before the Court. Only after constitution of SIT
\n\tand a Special Court, some of the witnesses including the complainant
\n\thave mustered courage and started stating certain facts about the
\n\tincidents in question before
\n\tthe SIT. However, still sense of lurking danger about the
\n\tconsequences of their statements before the investigating agency or
\n\tdeposition before the Court was at the back of their mind and for
\n\tsometime petrified by their suffering in the past and apprehensive
\n\tof backlash, even before SIT officers, no statement was made
\n\timplicating the appellant accused.  The above conduct of the
\n\tcomplainant and other witnesses cannot be said to be unnatural or
\n\tcan be termed as contradictory to or improvement over earlier
\n\tstatement.  On further investigation, the then Investigating
\n\tOfficer, Police Inspector – Mr. M.K. Patel was also added as
\n\tan accused and two different charge sheets were filed and
\n\tfour other persons were added as an accused. However, before the SIT
\n\tnone of the witnesses stated anything about the appellants herein
\n\tand according to SIT, since no
\n\treliable material or evidence was disclosed, they were not arraigned
\n\tas accused persons.  It is not in dispute that the SIT consists of
\n\tpersons of State Police Force and for the purpose of further
\n\tinvestigation, they have to take assistance from the local police
\n\talso.  In the above circumstances, failure or unwillingness on the
\n\tpart of witnesses to make a statement before the officer of the SIT
\n\tcannot be said to be lacuna. When the witnesses mustered courage and
\n\tfound themselves secured after the order passed in the case of
\n\tNational Human
\n\tRights Commission (supra),
\n\tthey had deposed before the Special Court presided by the judicial
\n\tofficer appointed by the High Court as per directions of the Apex
\n\tCourt, disclosing the role of the appellant accused in instigating
\n\tthe mob who had indulged in arsoning, looting and
\n\tmurdering people of a particular community.  The learned Judge has
\n\tgone through the deposition of eight witnesses and considering the
\n\tsame in light of the provisions of Section 319 of the Code and has
\n\tpassed a reasoned order. The above peculiar facts and circumstances
\n\tof this case and deposition
\n\tof the witnesses during the course of trial can certainly be said to
\n\tbe an evidence and when the learned Trial Judge has exercised a
\n\tsound judicial discretion, this Court while exercising powers under
\n\tprovisions of Section 482 of the Code is in agreement with the order
\n\timpugned passed by the learned Judge and the impugned order cannot
\n\tbe said to be in any manner contrary to the law laid down by the
\n\tApex Court in the decisions relied on and referred to by the learned
\n\tCounsels for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.
\n\t Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
\n\texercising powers under Section 319 of the Code and directions
\n\tissued in the case of National
\n\tHuman Rights Commission (supra), this
\n\tCourt finds that nature of evidence appearing to the learned Judge
\n\tfor exercising his sound judicial
\n\tdiscretion for invoking powers under Section 319 of the Code cannot
\n\tbe said to be illegal and therefore, no interference is called for
\n\tin exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal
\n\tProcedure, 1973 by this Court. ”\n<\/p>\n
Applying
\n\tthe above ratio to the facts of the present case, on going through
\n\tthe evidence of witnesses and after considering the entire evidence
\n\ton record, this Court at this stage cannot come to any conclusion
\n\twhether any contradictions are proved by the Investigating Officer
\n\tor not especially when trial court has come to the conclusion
\n\tinvoking powers under Sec.319 Cr.P.C. that present applicants are
\n\trequired to be prosecuted and issued summons.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis a settled legal position that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the
\n\tstatutory power should be exercised by the Court sparingly and in
\n\tthe rarest of rare cases when it is found that there is abuse of
\n\tprocess of law or any patent illegality having committed by the
\n\ttrial court. As discussed above, in this case, the trial court has
\n\texercised its discretion under Sec.319 Cr.P.C. after considering the
\n\tevidence on record and upon affording full opportunity of hearing to
\n\tthe learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. There is
\n\tno abuse of process of law or any illegality as having committed by
\n\tthe trial court and hence, in the opinion of this Court, inherent
\n\tpower should not be exercised under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. The
\n\tapplicants will get all the opportunities to place their defense
\n\tduring the course of trial. Thus, both the applications are required
\n\tto be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Both
\n\tthe applications are dismissed. Notices discharged.\n<\/p>\n
Observations
\n\tby this Court in this judgment being made for the purpose of
\n\tdeciding these applications will not prejudice the parties in trial.\n<\/p>\n
Office
\n\tshall keep a copy of this judgment in each matter.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(M.D.SHAH,J.)<\/p>\n
radhan<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011 Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/1\/2011 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1 of 2011 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 164 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 […]<\/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-77122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011 - 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\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-10T06:12:35+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\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-10T06:12:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3006,\"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\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-10T06:12:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011 - 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\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-10T06:12:35+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\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-10T06:12:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011"},"wordCount":3006,"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\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011","name":"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-10T06:12:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaveshbhai-vs-state-on-13-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhaveshbhai vs State on 13 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77122","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=77122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}