Gujarat High Court
Mulajibhai vs State on 15 June, 2011
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1355/2011 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1355 of 2011
=================================================
MULAJIBHAI
JINGABHAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
THROUGH
JAIL for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LB DABHI APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 15/06/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant, through Jail, has taken out this application for parole leave for the purpose of preferring appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his appeal.
2. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, has opposed the application and has submitted that the appeal was dismissed by the High Court way back in 2009. He has also pointed out from the record that earlier when the applicant was released on parole, he has absconded for 331 days. Mr. Dabhi also submitted that the remarks about the applicant's conduct by the jail authority shows that his conduct is far from satisfactory. He has also submitted that any details regarding preparing of appeal or about advocate, etc. have not been mentioned by the applicant and the initial formalities for preferring appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be completed by the other family members of the applicant also. In light of above, Mr. Dabhi has submitted that the applicant may not be released on parole leave.
3. Having regard to the facts of the case and considering the submissions made by Mr. Dabhi, learned APP, it seems that the applicant has not produced on record any documents showing that he wants to file appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court neither any mention about name of the advocate for the said purpose is made in the application. It is also required to be noted that the family members of the applicant can arrange for the initial formalities to prefer appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, at this stage, the applicant does not make out genuine ground and the application does not inspire confidence, more particularly because the judgment in the case is said to have been delivered in 2009. Hence, the application is rejected, however, with a clarification that as and when necessary formalities are completed and applicant's actual presence is required for the purpose of filing or preparing the appeal to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant may prefer fresh application. The application is accordingly rejected.
[ K.M.Thaker, J. ] kdc Top