Gujarat High Court
Bharat @ Bhatiyo Shantibhai Chudasama vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2020
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
R/CR.MA/13233/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13233 of 2020
==========================================================
BHARAT @ BHATIYO SHANTIBHAI CHUDASAMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUKESH KUMAR SUDARSHAN(10268) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETU M SUDARSHAN(10051) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NARENDRA K AMIN(9506) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KRINA CALLA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 18/09/2020
ORAL ORDER
This is second successive bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after filing of charge-sheet against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act in connection with FIR being I-CR No.91/2019 registered with Vanthali Police Station, District Junagadh. The last application being Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being Criminal Misc. Application No.3202/2020 was withdrawn by the learned advocate of the applicant only on 23.06.2020. The aforesaid application was submitted after the completion of investigation and applicant has been served the papers of investigation and learned advocate for the applicant is arguing the matter relying upon the evidence which was supplied by the Investigating Officer.
Learned advocate Mr. Narendra Amin appearing for the Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 19 01:34:11 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/13233/2020 ORDER applicant on query has miserably failed to establish any type of change in circumstances on the basis of which present second successive bail application can be entertained, which has been filed after completion of investigation. He has tried to argue the matter on merits, however by changing the advocate again and again, the Court is not supposed to examine the merits of the case which had already been examined earlier on two occasions i.e. prior to charge-sheet and subsequent thereto.
Hence, I do not find any reason to entertain the present second successive bail application and same is accordingly rejected.
(A.J.DESAI, J) DIPTI PATEL Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 19 01:34:11 IST 2020