Umashanker @ Rajabhaiya @ Ramjiyavan ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2019

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Umashanker @ Rajabhaiya @ Ramjiyavan ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2019

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

        R/CR.MA/12460/2019                                          ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12460 of 2019

==========================================================
        UMASHANKER @ RAJABHAIYA @ RAMJIYAVAN DUBEY
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                               Date : 08/07/2019

                                ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP Mr.Dabhi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-8 of 2016 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat for offence under Sections 399, 402, 364(A), 511, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1B)A of the Arms Act and Section 135 of G.P.Act.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 00:10:11 IST 2019

       R/CR.MA/12460/2019                                                 ORDER



4.   Learned         APP        appearing           on     behalf            of       the

respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. This Court has also considered the aspects that; (i) the applicant is in jail since 1.7.2016; (ii) the investigation is concluded and chargesheet is filed; (iii) it is contended by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since more than three years and till today the trial is not commenced; (iv) it is further submitted that 11 accused are arrested in connection with the FIR in question, out of which 10 co-accused have been enlarged on regular bail by the concerned Sessions Court;

     in     view       of       the     aforesaid          submission                 and



                                      Page 2 of 4

                                                                Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 00:10:11 IST 2019
       R/CR.MA/12460/2019                                              ORDER



     looking         to      the        role      attributed              to       the

applicant, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed.

The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-8 of 2016 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 00:10:11 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/12460/2019 ORDER period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

9. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) SRILATHA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 00:10:11 IST 2019

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court