Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Vimalbhai vs State on 19 April, 2010

Author: H.B.Antani

Bench: H.B.Antani

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/3782/2010	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3782 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

VIMALBHAI
RASIKLAL GOPIYANI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
ZUBIN F BHARDA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR DC SEJPAL, APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

1. RULE.

Mr DC Sejpal, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the State.

2. Heard Mr Zubin F Bharda, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr DC Sejpal, learned APP for the State at length and in great detail. The applicant is the main accused who is facing the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 328, 376, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. As per the FIR and the police papers produced for my perusal, the applicant who happens to be father in law of the victim committed rape on the victim without her consent and against her will.

3. Considering the aforesaid aspects, when the matter was argued at length, the application was not pressed and therefore, the same being Criminal Misc. Application No.1792 of 2010 was disposed of as not pressed by the learned advocate for the applicant on 8.3.2010. This being a successive bail application, there is no change in the circumstances which would warrant interference of this Court while exercising the powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. In view of the above, as the application is devoid of merits, the same is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.

[H.B.ANTANI, J.] mrpandya     Top