Gujarat High Court
Rahimkhan vs State on 28 December, 2010
Author: A.M.Kapadia
Bench: A.M.Kapadia
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/14790/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14790 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2333 of 2006
=========================================
RAHIMKHAN
@ FIROJKHAN BADARKHAN - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
THROUGH
JAIL for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR. J.M.PANCHAL, Ld. SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 28/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA) RULE.
Mr. J.M.Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State of Gujarat.
Having regard to the facts of the case, the application is taken up for hearing today.
The applicant - convict prisoner, who, vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 rendered in POTA Case No. 6 of 2004 by the learned Special Judge POTA (City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad), has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2), 3(3), and 4 of The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 read with Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to different terms for different offences and maximum RI of 10 years, has filed this application through jail authority, praying to enlarge him on regular bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal and alternatively, it is also prayed to expedite the final hearing of the Criminal Appeal on the grounds stated in the Application.
We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.J.M.Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent - State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the application and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused, copy whereof has been supplied by Mr. J.M.Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor during the course of his submission. We have also gone through the jail remark sheet submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
Upon perusal of the jail remark sheet, we have noticed that the applicant has undergone total period of 6 years, 6 months and 29 days of imprisonment as against the RI for 10 years awarded to him. During the said period, the Applicant - convict was released on Parole leave for 25 days on account of the illness of his son and has also enjoyed Furlough leave on three occasions. However, upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, we find that no case is made out by the Applicant - convict to release him on regular bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal.
In view of this, since the Applicant convict has failed to make out any ground seeking his release on regular bail, according to us, the prayer made by the Applicant - convict to release him on regular bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal cannot be entertained and same deserve to be rejected.
So far as alternative prayer to expedite the hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal is concerned, it may be noted that the above numbered Criminal Appeal is already listed on the final hearing board and adjourned from time to time as the learned Advocate for the Applicant - convict did not remain present when the matter was called out for hearing.
Seen in the above context, none of the prayers sought for by the Applicant - convict can be entertained and the application deserve to be rejected.
For the foregoing reasons, the application fails and accordingly it is rejected.
Rule is discharged.
(A.M.Kapadia,J) (B.N.Mehta,J) Jayanti* Top