Gujarat High Court
Poonambhai vs State on 1 February, 2010
Author: H.B.Antani
Bench: H.B.Antani
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/634/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 634 of 2010
=========================================================
POONAMBHAI
AATABHAI SODHA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SAMIR B BUNDELA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS ML SHAH APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 01/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail by the applicant, who came to be arrested in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R.No.I-50 of 2008 with Mahemdabad police station for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Samir B. Bundela for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged commission of offence. The learned advocate submitted that the applicant and the daughter of the complainant are from the same community and, during the applicant's visit to Moti Timbli, he and victim came in contact. It is submitted that the applicant married the daughter of the complainant and, therefore, he be granted bail, as prayed for, in the application. The learned advocate placed reliance on the birth certificate of the victim produced at Annexure C to the application and submitted that as per the said certificate, date of birth of the victim is 01.06.1994 which cannot be said to be correct and, as the certificate raises doubt about the birth date of the victim, benefit of the same be given to the applicant and he be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned A.P.P. Ms.M.L. Shah, representing the respondent-State, while opposing the bail application, submitted that as per the certificate given by the school, date of birth of the victim is 01.06.1994. Considering the said aspect and since the applicant has eloped with the victim, who was below the age of 16 years on the date of incident, prayer for bail cannot be entertained as the provisions of Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Exception 6 thereof, would come into play. Considering the aforesaid provision, the application does not call for interference and the same deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Samir B. Bundela for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Ms.M.L. Shah for the respondent-State at length and in great detail. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the averments made in the application, F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application and birth certificate of the victim produced at Annexure C to the application, it becomes clear that date of birth of the victim is 01.06.1994. Thus, admittedly, the victim was minor on the date of incident which took place on 01.03.2008. Considering the aforesaid aspect and since the victim was minor at the time of commission of alleged offence, provisions of Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more particularly Exception 6 thereof, would come into play. The application, in my view, cannot be entertained.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application and the same is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(H.B.ANTANI, J.) Hitesh Top