Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/133872009/2009 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13387 of 2009
=========================================
YOGITABEN
MANILAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR. ASHOK
PARMAR for MR MUKESH N VAIDYA for Applicant(s)
: 1,
MR. U.A.TRIVEDI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR M P SHAH for Respondent(s) : 2,
MS. KRUTI
M SHAH for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 23/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
The
present application has been filed by the Applicant Original
Complainant for cancellation of the bail granted to the Respondent
No.2 as per order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1558 of
2009 dated 22.9.2009 by the learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Surat.
The
Respondent No.2-husband is charged with having committed offence
under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code for which FIR being I-CR No. 159 of 2009 has been
registered with Khatodara police station.
Learned
Advocate Mr. Ashok Parmar appearing for learned Advocate Mr. Mukesh
N. Vaidya referred to the FIR and submitted that the complainant has
been cheated and forge documents are produced as it is confirmed by
the University. The documents are produced, which has been referred
to by learned Advocate and submitted that this itself suggest the
prima faice case and the correctness of the averments and it
supports the contentions raised by the Petitioner Complainant.
Learned
Advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted
that Respondent No.2 is the husband and it is a matrimonial dispute.
Even if these documents, which are stated to be forge, it could be
considered. She submitted that while granting the bail, this aspect
has been considered by the Sessions Court, and therefore, as the
Respondent is released on bail since September 2009 and there are no
complaints about any abuse or misuse of any liberty, the present
application may not be entertained.
Learned
APP Mr. U.A.Trivedi also submitted that there is a prima facie case.
However, there are no complaints.
Having
heard learned Advocate Mr. Ashok Parmar appearing for learned
Advocate Mr. Mukesh Vaidya, learned Advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for
Respondent No.2 as well as learned APP Mr. U.A.Trivedi and having
considered the facts stated hereinabove and considering the
principles regarding the cancellation of bail, the Court is of the
opinion that the present application cannot be entertained.
It
is well settled that the criteria / parameter for cancellation of
bail are different than for grant of bail, and therefore,
considering the prima facie case also for the purpose of deciding
the present application for cancellation of bail, it would not be
proper to exercise the discretion for cancellation of bail granted
to the Respondent No.2. At the same time, it would be in the
fitness of things if the trial is ordered to be expedited.
Therefore, as rightly submitted that there may be many cases pending
before the Court of learned Magistrate, however, in the facts and
circumstances, the trial of Criminal Case No. 27583 of 2009 is
ordered to be expedited. Accordingly, the present Application
stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Rule is
discharged.
(Rajesh
H. Shukla,J)
Jayanti*
Top