Gujarat Court March 2003 Judgments
Motilal Kasturji Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2233
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Shri K.T. Dave waives serviceof Rule for the respondents.2. The applicant-accused has filed this application through jail for releasinghim on regular bail during pendency and final disposal of his main CriminalAppeal No. 290 of 2002 on the ground that he is an innocent in this casestill he has been convicted by the trial Court. He was studying in higher secondaryat the time of the alleged incident. He has got old parents and except him,there is no other male member in his family to look after them. His brotherAmedaji, co-accused in this case is also in jail, therefore, he may be releasedon bail.3. Learned A.P.P. Shri Dave vehemently opposed this application on the ground that this is a case of triple murder where three innocent boys were murdered and the trial Court after relying upon the evidence of as many as three witnesses convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and that while admitting Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Babu Kava
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR892
A.M.Kapadia, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated September 18, 1995 rendered by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, (Court No. 18), Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 114 of 1992 by which the appellants ('accused' for short) of Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 1995 came to be convicted of the offences under Sections 304 Part II and 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and A-1 and A-3 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of five years for commission of the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC whereas A-2 was sentenced to suffer S.I. for a period of five years for commission of the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 114 of the IPC and also S.I. for a period of three months for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.2. Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 1995 is filed by the State under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) challenging the acquittal of the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Livarsing Tejsing Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ465; (2003)2GLR1261
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N, D. Gohil appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Gohil waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Misc. Criminal Application No. 56 of 2003 dated 31st January, 2003. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch has rejected bail application, against which, the present petition is filed. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. N. K. Majmudar has submitted that according to the F.I.R., offence under Section 399 of I.P.C. has been alleged against the present petitioner but for satisfying the ingredients of Section 399 of I.P.C., involvement of five persons in that very alleged offence, is very much essential ingredient. However, to emphasis this contention, learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has read over the definition of 'dacoity' and provisions of Section 399...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›