{"id":9447,"date":"2010-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-24T01:16:37","modified_gmt":"2018-04-23T19:46:37","slug":"uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&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\/9893\/2010\t 9\/ 9\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. 9893 of 2010\n \n\n \n=====================================================\n \n\nUTTAMKUMAR\nSINHA @ UTTAM S\/O NANDLAL SINHA - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nRAJESH M AGRAWAL, MR YOGESH R AGRAWAL for Applicant, MR VO JOSHI for\nApplicant \nMR KP RAWAL ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nRespondent \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\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.K.P.Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of<br \/>\nnotice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State of Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThis<br \/>\napplication has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure for grant of bail in connection with FIR registered on<br \/>\n05.02.2008 vide C.R.No.I-43\/2008, with Jamnagar City `A&#8217; Division<br \/>\nPolice Station, for offences punishable under Sections 489B, 489C and<br \/>\n120-B of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe<br \/>\npresent is a successive bail application. The earlier application<br \/>\nfiled by the applicant, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application<br \/>\nNo.4149 of 2009, was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated<br \/>\n08.05.2009, as the Court was not inclined to grant bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tThe<br \/>\nallegation against the applicant is that he, along with other<br \/>\nco-accused persons, is involved in the commission of the<br \/>\nabove-mentioned offences.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tMr.R.M.Agrawal,<br \/>\nlearned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that there is no<br \/>\nmaterial against the applicant, who has been arrested on a statement<br \/>\nof one of the co-accused persons who has since been acquitted by the<br \/>\nTrial Court, and  who had been enlarged on bail during Trial. It is<br \/>\nfurther submitted that though the present application is a successive<br \/>\none, there are changed circumstances which are substantial and vital<br \/>\nin nature, inasmuch as the co-accused Ashok Shiburao, on whose<br \/>\nstatement the applicant was arrested, has been acquitted by the Trial<br \/>\nCourt, which entitles the applicant to bail. That the applicant has<br \/>\nbeen arrested on 12.04.2008. The Charge has not been framed and the<br \/>\nTrial will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, there is no<br \/>\njustification for keeping the applicant behind Bars, especially when<br \/>\nthere is no evidence against him. That though there are eleven<br \/>\ncriminal case regarding the same type of offences against the<br \/>\napplicant in different Courts, but now only a few are pending. By<br \/>\nkeeping the applicant in jail, his fundamental right for speedy<br \/>\njustice is being violated, as the Trial is not proceeding<br \/>\nexpeditiously. That the fact that the petitioner hails from another<br \/>\nState i.e. Jharkhand cannot be a ground for rejecting the bail<br \/>\napplication. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the<br \/>\napplication may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn<br \/>\nsupport of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\napplicant has placed reliance upon the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">(1)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Babu Singh and others v. State of U.P. &#8211; (1978)1 SCC 579, (2) <a href=\"\/doc\/1685277\/\">Giani<br \/>\nPratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Another<\/a> &#8211; (1995)5 SCC<br \/>\n591, (3) Sanjay alias Bablu alias Keja v. State of Gujarat &#8211;<br \/>\n2003 SCC (Cri.) 1534 and (4) <a href=\"\/doc\/12904261\/\">Prakashbhai Keshrimal Shah v. The State<br \/>\nof Gujarat<\/a> &#8211; Criminal Misc. Application No.960 of 2008<br \/>\ndecided on 11.02.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tThe<br \/>\napplication has been strongly opposed by Mr.K.P.Rawal, learned<br \/>\nAdditional Public Prosecutor. He has submitted that out of the  ten<br \/>\naccused persons in the FIR, of which the applicant is one, four have<br \/>\nbeen convicted, one has been sent to the Juvenile Court, the Trial<br \/>\nagainst the applicant is pending and three co-accused are absconding.<br \/>\nIt is, therefore, canvased by the learned Additional Public<br \/>\nProsecutor that the acquittal of accused No.6, Ashok Shiburao, would<br \/>\nnot constitute a substantial or material change in circumstances so<br \/>\nas to justify the filing of a successive bail application, as there<br \/>\nis sufficient evidence\/material on record against the applicant. That<br \/>\nthe applicant has been brought before the Trial Court by way of a<br \/>\nTransfer Warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar,<br \/>\nfrom Maharashtra, which explains the delay in his case. The Trial is<br \/>\nproceeding and the Charge is likely to be framed soon. It is<br \/>\ncontended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the<br \/>\napplicant is not entitled to get bail as there is sufficient material<br \/>\non record to show his involvement in the commission of the offences<br \/>\nalleged, as he is one of the main conspirators. That the applicant is<br \/>\ninvolved in the supply of counterfeit currency all over India and<br \/>\neven across the border which is a very grave and serious offence that<br \/>\nundermines the economic stability of the country. It is emphasized<br \/>\nthat if the applicant is granted bail, he is likely to indulge in the<br \/>\nsame activities and commit the same offences. There is every<br \/>\npossibility that he may also abscond, therefore, the application for<br \/>\nbail may be rejected. It is further contended that merely because the<br \/>\napplicant has remained in custody since 12.04.2008, this would not<br \/>\nentitle him for grant of bail, in light of the seriousness of the<br \/>\noffence and evidence on record, showing his involvement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following<br \/>\njudgments in support of his submission that once an application for<br \/>\nbail is rejected, a fresh application cannot be allowed unless there<br \/>\nis a new ground:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">(1)<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Arvind Shivlal Soni v. State of Gujarat and Anr. &#8211; 1997(1) GLR 92<br \/>\nand (2) <a href=\"\/doc\/1521407\/\">Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan<\/a> alias Pappu Yadav and<br \/>\nAnother &#8211; (2005)2 SCC 42.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tHaving<br \/>\nheard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having<br \/>\nperused the material on record, including police papers and papers of<br \/>\nthe chargesheet which have been made available by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Public Prosecutor, the following aspects emerge for<br \/>\nconsideration, and have been duly considered:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tThe<br \/>\napplicant is involved in offences  of a grave and serious nature,<br \/>\nwhich undermine and destabilise the economic foundation of the<br \/>\nnation.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tFrom<br \/>\nthe material on record, it appears that the applicant is involved in<br \/>\nas many as eleven offences of the similar nature, in different parts<br \/>\nof the country. It further appears that the area of operation of the<br \/>\napplicant not only extends to the entire nation, but beyond the<br \/>\nIndian border.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)\tPrima-facie,<br \/>\nfrom the material on record, the involvement of the applicant in the<br \/>\ncommission of the alleged offences appears to be indicated.\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)\tThe<br \/>\nacquittal of one of the co-accused cannot be considered to be a<br \/>\nsubstantial change in circumstances so as to entitle the applicant<br \/>\nfor grant of bail, as there is no change in the factual or legal<br \/>\nposition since the earlier bail application was withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<p>(e)\tThe<br \/>\napplicant has been brought on a Transfer Warrant from Maharashtra,<br \/>\ntherefore, his Trial is still pending. This, in itself cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered as a ground for grant of bail, in view of the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case and the role allegedly played by the<br \/>\napplicant, in the commission of the above-mentioned offences.\n<\/p>\n<p>(f)\tThe<br \/>\npossibility that the applicant may indulge in the same activities if<br \/>\nreleased on bail, or may even abscond, cannot be ruled out,<br \/>\nespecially as he is facing Trial in about eleven cases of a similar<br \/>\nnature, in different parts of the<br \/>\ncountry.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tIn<br \/>\nState of U.P. Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi &#8211;<br \/>\n(2005)8 SCC 21,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court has enumerated the aspects that are to be considered<br \/>\nin an application for bail, as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The<br \/>\n\tmatters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether<br \/>\n\tthere is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the<br \/>\n\taccused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the<br \/>\n\tcharge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on<br \/>\n\tbail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the<br \/>\n\taccused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii)<br \/>\n\treasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of<br \/>\n\tbail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the<br \/>\n\tevidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the<br \/>\n\taccused is of such character that his mere presence at large would<br \/>\n\tintimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he<br \/>\n\twill use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence,<br \/>\n\tthen bail will be refused.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(Para\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn<br \/>\nKalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh<br \/>\nRanjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Another (Supra), the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;19.\tThe<br \/>\nprinciples of res judicata and such analogous principles although are<br \/>\nnot applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the courts are bound<br \/>\nby the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the<br \/>\nhierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a<br \/>\nhigher court or a coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration<br \/>\nat the hands of the court entertaining a bail application at a later<br \/>\nstage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the<br \/>\ncourts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the<br \/>\nformer or higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily,<br \/>\nthe issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to<br \/>\nbe reagitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to a<br \/>\nspeculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may<br \/>\nlead to forum hunting.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.\tThe<br \/>\ndecisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, are binding on the<br \/>\nsubordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of<br \/>\ncourse, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for<br \/>\na different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room<br \/>\nfor filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier<br \/>\napplications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a<br \/>\nchange in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier<br \/>\nview being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become<br \/>\nobsolete.  This is the limited area in which an accused who has been<br \/>\ndenied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application.  Therefore,<br \/>\nwe are not in agreement  with the argument of  learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe accused that in view of the  guarantee conferred on a person<br \/>\nunder Article 21 of the Constitution, it is open to the aggrieved<br \/>\nperson to make successive bail applications even on a ground already<br \/>\nrejected by the courts earlier, including the Apex Court of the<br \/>\ncountry.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tGuided<br \/>\nby the above principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court, which<br \/>\nare squarely applicable to the present case; and as, prima-facie, the<br \/>\ninvolvement of the applicant is indicated from the material on<br \/>\nrecord, in the considered view of this Court, this is not a fit case<br \/>\nfor exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tFor<br \/>\nthe above-stated reasons, the application deserves to be rejected and<br \/>\nis, accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIt<br \/>\nis made clear that the Court has considered the matter only from the<br \/>\nperspective of bail and no observation made in this order may be<br \/>\ntaken to be on the merits of the case. The Trial Court may proceed,<br \/>\nin accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations<br \/>\nmade in this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.Abhilasha<br \/>\nKumari, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(sunil)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/9893\/2010 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 9893 of 2010 ===================================================== UTTAMKUMAR SINHA @ UTTAM S\/O NANDLAL SINHA &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &#8211; Respondent(s) ===================================================== [&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-9447","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-23T19:46:37+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T19:46:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1767,\"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\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T19:46:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-23T19:46:37+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T19:46:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010"},"wordCount":1767,"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\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010","name":"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T19:46:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttamkumar-vs-state-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Uttamkumar vs State on 8 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/9447","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=9447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9447\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}