.....has
stated that
during the ceremony, the marriage rites were re-performed and that her husband (
respondent) tied a 'tali' to her neck, sprinkled flowers on her and garlanded her. my sisters and their husbands, brothers and their wives,
respondent's mother, paternal aunt, panduranga guru,
respondent's brothers, and their wives, sisters and their family and other. all the ceremonies connected
to the marriage were observed. if fact, though the respondent in his
evidence denied that he tied another tali to the petitioner, . ex. d_5 is the marriage certificate. the parties, it appears, laboured
under some notion that there was some infirmity in their marriage, because the
respondent had another wife smt. sharada bai at that time
under the special marriages act. that being so, the petitioner wife is entitled to restitution of conjugal
rights as contemplated under section 9 of the hindu marriage act, 1955.1. rule. mr. dabhi, learned app, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent state of gujarat.2.
having regard to the facts of the case, this
application is taken up for hearing today.3. the
applicant convict-
prisoner who vide judgement and order dated 30.6.2007 rendered in n.d.p.s. case no. 2 of 2005 by learned
additional sessions judge, surat,
has been convicted
for the offences under section 20(b) and 29 of the
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for both the
aforesaid offences, has filed this
criminal miscellaneous application praying for
suspension of
sentence and to
release him on bail during the
pendency and final hearing of the above numbered
criminal appeal.4. we have
considered the
submissions
advanced by ms. sadhana sagar for the
applicant and mr. dabhi, learned app for the
respondent state of gujarat. we have also perused the
averments made in the
application so also
the impugned judgement and order and the evidence.5. it may be noted that this being
successive bail
application, no ground is made out
to persuade us to
reconsider the prayer for bail. the
contention that the
applicant has undergone.....
1. Rule. Mr. Dabhi,
learned APP,
waives
service of Rule
on behalf of the
respondent State of Gujarat.
2. Having regard to the facts of the case, this application is taken up for hearing today.
3. The applicant convict-prisoner who vide judgement and order dated 30.6.2007 rendered in N.D.P.S. Case No. 2 of 2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, has been convicted for the offences under Section 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for both the aforesaid offences, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Application praying for suspension of sentence and to release him on bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal.
4. We have considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Sadhana Sagar for the applicant and Mr. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat. We have also perused the averments made in the application so also the impugned judgement and order and the evidence.
5. It may be noted that this being successive bail application, no ground is made out to persuade us to reconsider the prayer for bail. The contention that the applicant has undergone more than 50% of the tenure of the total imprisonment is no ground to release the applicant on bail. It is also required to be noted that the above numbered Criminal Appeal is listed for final hearing. In view of this, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence and release the applicant on bail during the pendency and final hearing of the above numbered Criminal Appeal.
6. Seen in the above, the application lacks merit and it deserves to be rejected. The application is rejected accordingly.
7. Rule is discharged.