Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Samat vs State on 10 May, 2012

Author: Harsha Devani

Bench: Harsha Devani

  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1425/2012	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1425 of 2012
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

SAMAT
PUNJA CHUDASAMA & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
THROUGH
JAIL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
MS ARCHANA RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/05/2012 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

1. By this petition which has been filed through jail authority, the petitioners seek parole for a period of 20 to 25 days for the purpose of attending the marriages of their brother and nephew, which are to be solemnized on 11.5.2012 and 12.5.2012 as is apparent on the perusal of the wedding invitation which is annexed along with the petition.

2. The petitioners had forwarded the application to the jail authority on 4.5.2012, which was received by this Court on 7.5.2012. However, the petition has been placed before this Court only on 10.5.2012, by which time it is too late for the Court to call upon the respondents to make due verification as regards the facts stated in the petition. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, summarily dismissed.

3. It may be noted that in the present case, the marriage of the brother and nephew was to take place on 11.5.2012 and 12.5.2012. Since the Registry had received the application on 7.5.2012, the Registry should have been vigilant enough to place the matter before the Court immediately thereafter considering the nature of the relief prayed for in the petition. However, since the application has been placed belatedly before the Court for the above stated reasons, the matter has been rendered more or less infructuous, and as such it is not possible for the Court to consider the grant of relief prayed for in the petition. In the aforesaid premises, it is expected that the Registry shall be more careful in future.

(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) (vipul)     Top