Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Dharmendra @ Dhamo Raichandbhai on 11 September, 2015
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
R/CR.MA/5579/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
5579 of 2014
In CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16123 of 2013
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)
Versus
PATEL DHARMENDRA @ DHAMO RAICHANDBHAI....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 11/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant-State of Gujarat has prayed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent-accused by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.16123 of 2013 on the ground that the respondent-accused has committed breach of condition No.4(a) imposed by this Court.
2. By the said condition, though the respondent- accused was directed not to enter into Unjha Taluka for a period of three months from the date of order i.e. from 23.10.2013, the respondent-accused entered on 14.11.2013 in Unjha Taluka and was arrested from the said Taluka.
3. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sat Sep 12 02:43:08 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/5579/2014 ORDER respondent-accused has filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed this application.
4. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the applicant-State of Gujarat states that the respondent-accused was arrested from Unjha and alleged panchnama was prepared on the same date and, therefore, anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent-accused may be cancelled.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-accused states that the respondent-accused has been deliberately arrested from the area which is not situated within Unjha Taluka. On the contrary, without any reason he was arrested from Bhandu on 14.11.2013 and thereafter, the panchnama was prepared and the arrest of the respondent-accused has been shown to be made from Unjha. Pursuant to the arrest, the respondent- accused had made application for bail before the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Unjha, by which, the respondent-accused was released for the second offence, vide order dated 15.11.2013 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Unjha. He would submit that immediately it was brought to notice of the learned Magistrate that he had never entered into Unjha Taluka and false case was filed against him. He would further submit that the respondent-accused was released almost from two years and from the aforesaid period, the respondent- accused has not committed breach of any conditions and in the present case, the investigation is over and the charge- sheet is filed. Therefore, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant may be rejected.
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Sep 12 02:43:08 IST 2015
R/CR.MA/5579/2014 ORDER
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have perused the papers of investigation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the gravity of offence and alleged breach of condition and in absence of serious allegations levelled against the applicant, I am of the opinion that the present application is meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) Ashish Tripathi Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sat Sep 12 02:43:08 IST 2015