Skip to content


Kishor Prabhat Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat and 5 - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
AppellantKishor Prabhat Gohil
RespondentState of Gujarat and 5
Excerpt:
indian penal code (ipc) - section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- learned counsel for the appellant sahnawaz contends that none of the appellants was arrested on the spot. none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the appellant. appellant has not been identified at any point of time. pw5, pw6 and pw10 have deposed about the incident. pw3 and pw4 have specifically identified the accused persons in the court. this witness has further identified appellant ashraf and shahnawaz in the court correctly. in regard to the identity of the accused persons pw3 and pw4 have identified the appellants herein as the persons who had entered the shop on 8th july 1999. appellants were awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven..........procedure, 1973 in connection with the offence being crno.i-125 of 2011 registered with panigate police station, dist.vadodara for the offences u/s. 307, 323, 504 of the ipc and undersection 135 of the bombay police act. 3. heardmr.p.p.majmudar, learned counsel for the applicant. mr.majmudar hassubmitted under instructions of his client that injured is dischargedfrom the hospital. he has submitted that charge-sheet is filed. hehas submitted that applicant will be available during trial. he has,therefore, prayed for grant bail to the present applicant. 4. heardmr. k.l.pandya, learned app for the respondent state. mr.pandya hasvehemently opposed the present application. he has contended thatinjury is caused on vital part of the body and looking to the saidoffence the applicant is.....
Judgment:

Gujarat High Court Case Information System

Print

CR.MA/13902/2011 4/4 ORDER


IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


CRIMINAL

MISC.APPLICATION No. 13902 of 2011



=========================================================

KISHOR

PRABHAT GOHIL - Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE

OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)

=========================================================


Appearance

:
MR

PP MAJMUDAR for

Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KL PANDYA, APP for Respondent(s) :

1,
=========================================================

CORAM

:

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED



Date

: 05/10/2011

ORAL ORDER


1. Rule.

Mr. K.L.Pandya, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the

respondent.


2. This

Application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the offence being CR

No.I-125 of 2011 registered with Panigate Police Station, Dist.

Vadodara for the offences u/s. 307, 323, 504 of the IPC and under

Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.


3. Heard

Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.Majmudar has

submitted under instructions of his client that injured is discharged

from the hospital. He has submitted that charge-sheet is filed. He

has submitted that applicant will be available during trial. He has,

therefore, prayed for grant bail to the present applicant.


4. Heard

Mr. K.L.Pandya, learned APP for the respondent State. Mr.Pandya has

vehemently opposed the present application. He has contended that

injury is caused on vital part of the body and looking to the said

offence the applicant is required to be granted bail.


5. Having

heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts

and circumstances of the case, statement of the witnesses, gravity of

the offence and quantum of punishment and the fact there is no

definite allegation made against the applicant, I am inclined to

grant bail to the applicant.


6. Considering

the above, this Application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to

be released on bail in connection with CR No.I-125 of 2011 registered

with Panigate Police Station, Dist. Vadodara for the offence alleged

against him in this Application on his executing a Bond of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one solvent surety of the

like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the

conditions that he shall-


a) not

take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;


b) not

to try to tamper or pressurise the prosecution witnesses or

complainant in any manner;


c) maintain

law and order and should cooperate the Investigating Officer;


d) not

act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;


e) not

to enter area of Panigate Police Station and mark presence at

Sayajigunj Police Station on every 15th of the month

between 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.


f) not

leave the country without the prior permission of the concerned

Sessions Judge;


g) furnish

the address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the

time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence

without prior permission of this Court;


h) surrender

his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week.


7. If

the breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned

Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate

action in the matter.


8. Bail

before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would

be open to the trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the

solvency certificate if prayed for.


9. Rule

is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)

kks

   

Top


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //