Gujarat High Court
Vijay vs State on 16 August, 2010
Author: A.M.Kapadia
Bench: A.M.Kapadia
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9404/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9404 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1064 of 2009
=========================================
VIJAY
BACHUBHAI KHENI
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1
=========================================
Appearance :
THROUGH
JAIL for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR. L.B.DABHI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 16/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA) RULE.
MR.
L.B.Dabhi, learned APP 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.
By filing instant application, the applicant convict - prisoner, who has been convicted vide judgment and judgment and order dated 19.3.2009 rendered in Sessions Case No.93 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, for the offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years, has filed this application through jail authority, praying to enlarge him on temporary bail for a period of 30 days, to enable him to cultivate his land during this monsoon season.
We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned APP for the Respondent State of Gujarat and perused the averments made in the application and the supporting documents that form part of the application. We have also gone through the jail remark sheet submitted by the learned APP.
Upon perusal of the jail remark sheet, we have noticed that the applicant has undergone 4 years, 8 months and 11 days of imprisonment, and during the said period he has enjoyed furlough leave on one occasion and he was granted parole leave by the District Magistrate, Vadodara on three occasions in 2010. Besides, this, he has not produced any revenue record, i.e. 7/12 extract (panipatrak) showing that he owns the agricultural land. The Applicant convict prisoner has only produced the certificate issued by Sarpanch, Oonchadi Gram Panchayat.
In view of this and more particularly, since the Applicant convict prisoner was released on four occasions in the year 2010, we are not inclined to enlarge him on temporary bail, on the grounds stated by him in his application.
For the foregoing reasons, application fails and accordingly, it is rejected. Rule is discharged.
Before parting, it is required to be mentioned that the Appeal filed by the Applicant Appellant has been 'Admitted' by this Court vide order dated 25.9.2009, and thereafter, he was granted parole leave by the District Magistrate, Vadodara. It is settled principle of law that when the Appeal is pending final hearing before this Court, District Magistrate has no power or authority to grant parole leave. It appears that, probably the 'writ of admission' of the Appeal might not have been sent to the jail authority. If that be so, the registry is directed to send the writ showing that the Appeal has been 'Admitted' by this Court vide order dated 25.9.2009, to the jail authority, and the District Magistrate, Vadodara is also directed that as the Appeal is 'Admitted' by this Court and is pending for final hearing, he shall not grant Parole leave to the Applicant.
Copy of this order may be sent to the jail authority and the District Magistrate, Vadodara as well.
(A.M.Kapadia,J) (J.C.Upadhyaya,J) Jayanti* Top