Gujarat High Court
Jayantibhai vs State on 21 June, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6670/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6670 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 597 of 2011
=========================================================
JAYANTIBHAI
NARBHERAMBHAI GONDALIYA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KAMAL M SOJITRA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR HL JANI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 21/06/2011
ORAL ORDER
Leave to amend.
At the outset learned advocate for the applicants - accused does not press this application so far as applicant No.1 is concerned. This application stands rejected qua applicant No.1. Rule is discharged so far as applicant No.1 is concerned.
The applicants-original accused of Sessions Case No.56 of 2009, who are convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, on 4.5.2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, has filed present application for bail. The applicants are sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.200/- in default 30 days S.I. for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 114 and 5 years S.I. and fine of Rs.500/- in default 2 months S.I. for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Penal Code.
Heard Mr.Kamal M. Sojitra, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.H. L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Mr.Sojitra contended that the applicant No.2 is old lady. He contended that from the evidence it is established that the deceased was staying separately. He has also contended that from the provisions of Sections 107 and 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code the said applicant cannot be covered within the meaning of abettor or instigator. He has, therefore, contended that the application may kindly be allowed by releasing the applicant No.2 on bail pending the appeal.
I have gone through the papers produced before me as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal.
Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to grant the bail to the applicant No.2. Hence, the applicant No.2 is ordered to be released on bail pending hearing and disposal of the main appeal on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and a surety of the like amount on usual terms and conditions. Rule is made absolute qua applicant No.2 to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(Z. K. SAIYED, J) kks Top