Court : Gujarat
ORAL ORDER1. Rule.Mr.Maulik G. Nanavati,learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State of Gujarat. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is being heard and decided today.2. This application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, has been filed by the applicant for grant of bail in connection with FIR, being CR.No.I-58 of 2009, registered at Karjan Police Station, District-Vadodara (Rural), for offences punishable under Sections 306,498 and 114, of the Indian Penal Code.3. The allegation against the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, is that he is involved in the commission of the above-mentioned offences whereby the deceased was forced to take the extreme step.4. Mr.B.K.Raj,learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved in the commission of the alleged offences. That the applicant and the deceased were living a happy married lif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL ORDER1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner under The Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Himmatnagar in W.C. Application No.178/1996 dated 11.12.2009, whereby, the said application was partly allowed and the appellant has been held liable to pay an amount of Rs.83,182/- as compensation to the respondents, original applicants and also a penalty of Rs.41,596/-.2. The facts in brief are that deceased Amratbhai Ranabhai Khant was working as a Driver in the Office of the appellant. On 30.12.1991, at about 2100 hrs. While the deceased was on duty and driving a Jeep bearing registration no. GAD-6103, an accident took place, in which the deceased expired. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased, the respondents herein, filed W.C. Application No. 178/1996 before the Court below praying for compensation under the provisions of the said Act. After hearing both the sides, the Court below partly allowed the application by passi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL ORDER1. Rule. Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State.2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I-20 of 2008 with Mahuva Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 396, 398, 399, 302, 400, 402, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) (C) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that charge sheet is filed and that the similarly situated co-accused, who are invovled in the offence, have been released by this Court by various orders passed in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 11083 of 2008, 12491 of 2008, 312 of 2009 and 14023 of 2009. Considering the aforesaid aspect and the role attributed to the applicant, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.4. Heard learned APP for the respondent State who opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence.5. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL ORDER1. Rule. Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State.2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I 145/2010 with Rakhial Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 323, 324, 294A, 452, 427, 506(1), 114 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicants and punishment prescribed, the applicants may be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the applicants will be available for trial and would not flee from the course of justice.4. Heard learned APP for the respondent State.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL ORDER1. Rule. Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State.2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.III-1209 of 2010 with LCB Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1) (B), 65AE, 116(2), 81, 99 of Bombay Prohibition Act.3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submit that considering the nature of evidence, role attributed to the applicant and punishment prescribed and that the case is triable by the Magistrate, this application for bail may kindly be considered.4. Heard learned APP for the respondent State who opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, I am incline...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL ORDER1. The appellant State preferred this appeal under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C., feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli on 9.12.2000 in Criminal Case No.64 of 2000. The respondent herein was original accused in the aforesaid criminal case and the charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When his plea was recorded by the learned CJM, he pleaded guilty. Thereupon, by impugned order dated 9.12.2000, upon plea of guilty, respondent came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 252 of the Cr.P.C., and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/-.2. None appeared for the respondent though served.3. Heard submissions advanced by Mrs.Shah, learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL ORDER1. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at M Case No. 1/2009 with Pandesara Police Station, Surat district for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506(2), 120-B etc. of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for the alleged incident, which took before 25 years, complaint is filed. It is further submitted that the applicants herein are permanent residents and will be available for investigation and not likely to flee from the course of justice. Learned counsel further submits that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.3. Heard learned APP for the respondent State.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL ORDER1. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report registered at CR No.I 103/2010 with Bhilad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 181, 120-B, 34, 35, 114 etc. of the Indian Penal Code.2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that considering the nature of dispute and that the loan amount for the vehicle is already paid, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the applicant will be available for investigation and will not flee from the course of justice.3. Heard learned APP for the respondent State.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED, J.ORAL ORDER1. Rule. Mr.H.H. Parikh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.2. Present application is filed by the applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to suspend the sentence imposed upon him vide order dated 03rd December 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.3, Vadodara in Atrocity Case No.17 of 2010 by releasing the applicant-accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal.3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara by his judgment and order dated 03rd December 2010 convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989.4. Heard Mr.M.M. Saiyed, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.H. Parikh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.5. I h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
ORAL 1. The appellants original accused have filed this Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.05.2009 passed by the learned 5^th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 149 of 2007, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has (i) held the appellant No.1 - (ori. Accused No.1) guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of I.P. Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for 6 (years) and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- i/d to undergo SI for 3 (three) months; (ii) held the appellants No.2 & 4 original accused Nos.2 & 4 guilty for the offence under Section 323 I.P. Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for 6 (six) months; and (iii) held the appellant No.3 original accused No.3 guilty for the offence under Section 324 of I.P. Code and awarded the sentence to the extent that the sentence which he had already undergone was treated as sentence.2. The brief facts of the case of prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!