{"id":95560,"date":"2010-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2"},"modified":"2016-07-23T03:30:38","modified_gmt":"2016-07-22T22:00:38","slug":"vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.B.Antani,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/13319\/2009\t 1\/ 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. 13319 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nRAVINDRASING\n@ RAVI JAIRAMSING PAWAR\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nND NANAVATI, SR. COUNSEL WITH MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK for Applicant. \nMR\nTUSHAR MEHTA, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL for\nRespondent. \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 H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \n ORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\nis an application preferred under section 439 of the Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure Code by the applicant who has been arrested in connection<br \/>\nwith F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-252 of 2009 registered with Odhav Police<br \/>\nStation for offences punishable under sections 302, 328, 114, 272,<br \/>\n273, 109, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections<br \/>\n65(a)(b)(c), (d) and (e), 66(1)(b), 67 (1) (c), 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83<br \/>\nof the Bombay Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis alleged in the FIR which was lodged on 07.07.2009 that husband of<br \/>\nthe complainant had gone to his service and in the afternoon about<br \/>\n1.00 PM, he came back and stated that he was not feeling well, and<br \/>\ntherefore he was taken to the hospital.  It is further alleged in the<br \/>\ncomplaint that after some time, husband of the complainant said that<br \/>\nhe cannot see anything, and therefore, he was taken to the hospital<br \/>\nwhere the Doctors, after examining him, declared him dead.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>N.D. Nanavati, learned senior counsel appearing with learned advocate<br \/>\nMr. Mousham Yagnik for the applicant submitted that considering the<br \/>\nrole attributed to the applicant, he is not the main culprit who is<br \/>\ninvolved in the commission of the alleged offence and therefore he<br \/>\ndeserves to be enlarged on bail.  He submitted that even as per the<br \/>\nprosecution case,  the only allegation against the applicant is that<br \/>\nhe has sold country made liquor and therefore the provisions of<br \/>\nsections 272 and 273 of Indian Penal Code is not prima facie made out<br \/>\nagainst the applicant as he is not responsible in adulterating the<br \/>\nliquor which is done at the stage of manufacturing.  He submitted<br \/>\nthat even the provisions of sections 302, 307 and 328 of IPC cannot<br \/>\nbe attracted against the applicant as even the basic ingredients are<br \/>\nnot satisfied in the case of the applicant. He submitted that at the<br \/>\nmost, the applicant can be charged for offences punishable under the<br \/>\nBombay Prohibition Act.  He submitted that even on perusal of<br \/>\nstatements of Naresh Dattatrey Gajjar dated 08.07.2009, 11.07.2009<br \/>\nand 26.07.2009, he does not indicate the involvement of the applicant<br \/>\nin the commission of offence.  He submitted that the statement of<br \/>\nNaresh Dattatrey Gajjar dated 26.07.2009 mentions about the fact that<br \/>\nliquor was purchased from the applicant, and, save and except the<br \/>\naforesaid statement, there is nothing on the record to indicate the<br \/>\ninvolvement of the applicant in the commission of offence.  Likewise,<br \/>\non perusal of the statement of Balvantbhai Vithalbhai Vaghela dated<br \/>\n09.07.2009, it is clear that the said witness has not mentioned the<br \/>\nname of the present applicant but thereafter on 15.07.2009, with a<br \/>\nview to implicating the present applicant in the aforesaid crime, a<br \/>\nfurther statement was recorded so as to implicate the applicant, but<br \/>\neven then, nothing turns out so as to indicate involvement of the<br \/>\napplicant in the commission of the offence.   Learned advocate also<br \/>\nplaced reliance on the statement of Manjulaben dated 08.07.2009 and<br \/>\nsubsequent statement dated 08.08.2009 in support of the submission<br \/>\nthat even prima facie case is not made out against the applicant,<br \/>\nand, therefore, the prayer as set out in the application deserves to<br \/>\nbe granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\nthe other hand, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General<br \/>\nsubmitted that the applicant is facing charge for offences<br \/>\npunishable under sections 302, 328, 114, 272, 273, 109, 201 and 120-B<br \/>\nof the Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of the<br \/>\nBombay Prohibition Act.  He submitted that the applicant used to<br \/>\npurchase liquor from Vinod @ Dagri Chandubhai Chauhan along with two<br \/>\nother persons, viz. Nazir Ahmed Noormohammad and Nazir Hussien<br \/>\nKadarbhai Sheikh and thereafter he used to sell the suprious liquor<br \/>\nto Mina Manjitsingh Rajput, Dhyansingh @ Dhatru, Mahendrabhai<br \/>\nHaribhai Macwana, Mohammad Tariff, Nassuriddin @ Nasro, Shantaben,<br \/>\nVuiruttama, Puran Nepali and Sulakshana.  Learned Additional<br \/>\nAdvocate General has also placed on the analysis C.D.R.<br \/>\n of the mobile phone calls which was recovered from the possession of<br \/>\nthe applicant and submitted that numerous mobile phone calls were<br \/>\nmade with  Nazir Hussien Kadarbhai Sheikh, Meenaben etc. Learned<br \/>\nAdditional Advocate General has also placed reliance on the report of<br \/>\nthe Forensic Science Laboratory in support of the submission that<br \/>\nthe liquor was found to contain methanol which is hazardous to  the<br \/>\nhealth of a person who consumes it. Thus, considering the role<br \/>\nattributed to the applicant and the manner in which the offence is<br \/>\ncommitted by him in tandem with  other accused and seriousness<br \/>\nas well as gravity of offence in  which the applicant is involved, no<br \/>\ndiscretionary relief be granted to the applicant as in all, 149<br \/>\npersons have lost their lives and so many families have lost their<br \/>\nbread winners in the family.   Learend Additional<br \/>\nAdvocate General<br \/>\nalso relied on the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State by<br \/>\nM.D. Chowdhary, Police Inpsector, Crime Branch in support of the<br \/>\naforesaid contention as well as the fact that the applicant is<br \/>\ninvolved in 20 prohibition cases and some of them are pending before<br \/>\nthe competent court.  He, therefore, submitted that the activities in<br \/>\nwhich the applicant is involved would also have a very adverse or<br \/>\ndeleterious effect on the Society as a whole and therefore,<br \/>\ninvolvement of the applicant in the commission of offence requires to<br \/>\nbe viewed very seriously and the application deserves to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI<br \/>\nhave heard learned counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati for the applicant and<br \/>\nMr. Tushar Mehta, learned Addl. Advocate General for the  opponent<br \/>\nState, at length and in great detail. I have carefully taken into<br \/>\nconsideration the averments made in the application as well as role<br \/>\nof the applicant which is reflected in the FIR. The applicant is<br \/>\ncharged for the offence punishable under sections 302,<br \/>\n328, 114, 272, 273, 109, 201 and 120-B<br \/>\nof the Indian Penal Code read with sections 65(a)(b)(c), (d) and (e),<br \/>\n66(1)(b), 67 (1) (c), 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition<br \/>\nAct.  The applicant used to purchase liquor from Vinod @ Dagri<br \/>\nChandubhai Chauhan along with two other persons, viz. Nazir Ahmed<br \/>\nNoormohammad and Nazir Hussien Kadarbhai Sheikh and thereafter he<br \/>\nused to sell the spurious liquor to Mina Manjitsingh Rajput,<br \/>\nDhyansingh @ Dhatru, Mahendrabhai Haribhai Macwana, Mohammad Tariff,<br \/>\nNassuriddin @ Nasro, Shantaben, Vuiruttama, Puran Nepali and<br \/>\nSulakshana.  Even the analysis of the mobile phone calls submitted by<br \/>\nlearned Additional<br \/>\nAdvocate General<br \/>\nclearly indicates that the applicant used to talk on mobile phone<br \/>\nwith other accused persons who are manufacturing and selling the<br \/>\nliquor.  Thus, the entire link connecting the applicant with the<br \/>\ncrime is prima facie established.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI<br \/>\nhave  considered the statements of witnesses  referred to by learned<br \/>\nadvocates of both the sides, more particularly, statements of  Naresh<br \/>\nDattatrey Gajjar and Balvantbhai Vithalbhai Vaghela.<br \/>\nMuddamal which was recovered  was sent to Directorate of Forensic<br \/>\nScience Laboratory for the purpose of analysis, and the report given<br \/>\nby the FSL is also taken into consideration by me. Detailed analysis<br \/>\ngiven by the Scientific Officer is also produced for my perusal which<br \/>\nshows that methanol and ethanol were found in the samples which were<br \/>\nsent to FSL. Methanol and ethanol are poisonous substances and if it<br \/>\nis added to the liquor, then, it is likely to have adverse effect on<br \/>\nthe body of the person who consumes it.  The applicant is involved in<br \/>\nvery serious offences. Considering the gravity and nature of the<br \/>\noffence in which the applicant is involved, the same, in my view,<br \/>\nwould have a very serious effect on the social fabric of the Society.<br \/>\nManufacturing and supplying of liquor is, as such, prohibited in the<br \/>\nState of Gujarat. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case, even  using quality raw material, its production and supply<br \/>\nare  an illegal activities in the State. In the present case, the<br \/>\napplicant has supplied liquor manufactured illegally and that too, by<br \/>\nusing poisonous substance of methanol which everyone knows that if<br \/>\nanyone consumes it, he is likely to have a very adverse effect on the<br \/>\nbody and can cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause<br \/>\ndeath.  The nature of accusation against the accused  is  elaborated<br \/>\nin the FIR and so far as the severity of offence is concerned,<br \/>\noffence under Sec.302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment<br \/>\nfor life; offence under Sec.307 is punishable with imprisonment for a<br \/>\nterm which may extend to ten years and if hurt is caused to any<br \/>\nperson, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life;<br \/>\noffence under Section 328 is punishable  with imprisonment of either<br \/>\ndescription for a term which may extend to ten years. The applicant<br \/>\nis also involved in offences punishable under the Bombay Prohibition<br \/>\nAct. Thus, considering the nature of the offence in which the<br \/>\napplicant is involved and the manner in which the liquor was<br \/>\ndistributed to large number of customers having full knowledge that<br \/>\nit contains methanol, in my view, it requires to be viewed seriously,<br \/>\nas in all, 149 lives have been lost because of consumption of<br \/>\nspurious liquor. The Court has also to consider the character of the<br \/>\nevidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable<br \/>\npossibility of presence of accused not being secured at the trial,<br \/>\nreasonable apprehension of the evidence of the witnesses being<br \/>\ntampered with and larger interest of public or State and other<br \/>\nsimilar factors which are relevant in the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case. In view of the catena of decisions rendered by the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex court, detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate<br \/>\ndocumentation of  merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court<br \/>\nwhile passing orders on bail applications. Yet the Court  has to be<br \/>\nsatisfied as to whether there is prima facie case against the<br \/>\napplicant. Thus, considering the offence in which the applicant is<br \/>\ninvolved, seriousness or gravity of offence, manner in which the<br \/>\noffence is committed by the applicant, impact on the Society as a<br \/>\nwhole and various provisions of  offences<br \/>\npunishable under sections 302, 328, 114, 272, 273, 109, 201 and 120-B<br \/>\nof the Indian Penal Code read with sections 65(a)(b)(c), (d) and (e),<br \/>\n66(1)(b), 67 (1) (c), 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition<br \/>\nAct which are invoked in the present case, I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that no discretionary relief is required to be<br \/>\ngranted to the applicant as provided under Sec.439 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tFor<br \/>\nthe foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application preferred<br \/>\nby the applicant and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is<br \/>\ndischarged.\n<\/p>\n<pre>mathew\t\t\t\t\t\t[\nH.B. ANTANI, J.]\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court ========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010 Author: H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/13319\/2009 1\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 13319 of 2009 ========================================================= RAVINDRASING @ RAVI JAIRAMSING PAWAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================= Appearance : MR ND NANAVATI, SR. COUNSEL [&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-95560","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>========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 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\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-22T22:00:38+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\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-22T22:00:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1716,\"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\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2\",\"name\":\"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-22T22:00:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 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":"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 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\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-22T22:00:38+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\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-22T22:00:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2"},"wordCount":1716,"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\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2","name":"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-22T22:00:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-mr-on-6-april-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"========================================================= vs Mr on 6 April, 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\/95560","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=95560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}