Gujarat High Court
Kulbhushan vs State on 30 April, 2010
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/890/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 890 of 2010
=========================================================
KULBHUSHAN
KANTIBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YS LAKHANI Sr. Advocate with MR RB PATEL
for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR SHIRISH R PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LR
PUJARI Ld. APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
DHARMESH D NANAVATY for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 30/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr LR Pujari learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. The applicant, accused of CR No. I-228/2008 registered with Shahibaug Police Station for the offence under sec. 366, 376, 384, 323, 506(1) and 114 of IPC, has filed this application for releasing him on regular bail.
3. Heard Mr YS Lakhani learned Senior Advocate with Mr RB Patel for the applicant, Mr. LR Pujari learned APP for the State and Mr Dharmesh Nanavati learned advocate with prosecution.
4. Mr. Lakhani has read the export's opinion of FSL regarding CD, which is important piece of evidence for the prosecution and submitted that the applicant is in a position to show that this is clear case of consent, but he has fairly admitted that two witnesses have already examined by the trial court and the matter is pending for recording of further evidence of prosecution.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the FSL report. No doubt, the applicant has a right to say that this is a new and good ground for bail application, but it is not proper for this court to consider whether there was a consent of the prosecutrix or not when the trial is on the way. Therefore, it is required to be observed by this Court that just to protect the right of the applicant-accused, some direction is required to be given to the trial Court to the effect that within a particular time and as per the provisions of sec. 309 of CrPC, the sessions case is required to be disposed of.
6. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the Sessions Case No. 226/2009 within 60 days from 10.5.2010. This application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.) mandora/ Top