Gujarat High Court
Jitendra vs State on 13 May, 2010
Author: H.B.Antani
Bench: H.B.Antani
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4293/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4293 of
2010
======================================
JITENDRA
SAMATBHAI RATHOD, - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MS. KRUTI M SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR DC SEJPAL APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
:13/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This is an application preferred under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant who has been arrested in connection with I-C.R.No.52 of 2010 registered at Pradyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot City, for the offences punishable under sections 306 and 202 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned advocate Ms.Kruti Shah for the applicant submitted that applicant is an innocent person and false case is foisted on him. Considering the role attributed to the applicant as reflected in First Information Report, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned APP Mr.D.C.Sejpal representing State while opposing the bail application submitted that applicant is involved in the serious offence punishable under sections 306 and 202 of Indian Penal Code. Considering the role attributed to the applicant and the manner in which offence is committed by the applicant, no discretionary relief be granted to the applicant and the application deserves to be rejected out of hand.
Heard learned advocate Ms.Kruti Shah for the applicant and Mr.D.C.Sejpal, learned APP for respondent State at length and in great detail.
I have considered the role attributed to the applicant as reflected in First Information Report as well as police papers which have been produced for my perusal. The statement of witnesses viz. Hetalben D/o. Hashmukhray Ramji Sanghvi dated 23.02.2010, Sonalben W/o. Bharatbhai Vadaliya dated 23.02.2010 and statement of Jayshreeben D/o.Gandabhai Chauhan are perused by me. The details with regard to mobile calls, produced by learned APP, are also perused by me. Considering the statement of witnesses and the manner in which applicant is committed offence punishable under sections 306 and 202 of Indian Penal Code, I am of the view that no discretionary relief can be granted to the applicant, as prayed for, in the application.
Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the orders passed by coordinate bench of this Court (Coram: R.H.Shukla, J.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11042 of 2009 dated 07.10.2009 and in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9225 of 2009 dated 03.09.2009. It has been strenuously contended by learned advocate for the applicant that provisions contained in section 306 of Indian Penal Code cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and even basic ingredients are not satisfied to attract section 306 of Indian Penal Code. However, considering the statements of witnesses and the materials on record of the case, I am of the view that applicant was prima facie involved in the commission of offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
In view of the foregoing discussion, there are no merits in the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant and the application is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(H.B.ANTANI, J.) Amit/-
Top