Gujarat High Court
Jayraj vs State on 16 July, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1169/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1169 of 2010
=========================================================
JAYRAJ
GILUBHAI RAJ - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRAVIN GONDALIYA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MG NANAVATI, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 16/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner is one of the accused. He was placed at Nadiad Jail pending trial for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was however, shifted to Sabarmati Central Jail on the ground that his behaviour in the jail was found objectionable. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of being brought to Ahmedabad, he is not being produced at Anand on number of occasions when the Sessions Case is fixed, due to which the trial is getting delayed.
Learned APP for the State under instructions stated that there were serious complaints against the petitioner while in jail at Nadiad. He therefore cannot be brought back there. He, however, could not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not produced on several occasions before the Trial Court. He stated that it was so for want of police escort. Surely, for whatever reason, the petitioner's trial cannot be delayed indefinitely for reasons which cannot be attributed to him.
Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to ensure that the petitioner is produced regularly before the Sessions Court during trial to ensure that the trial is not unnecessarily delayed. It would also be open for the authorities to examine whether the petitioner can be brought near to Anand from where he can be easily brought for trial. In case the petitioner finds that he is not being produced regularly before the Trial Court, it will be open for him to apply again.
Subject to the above directions, the petition is dismissed.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn) Top