Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr. K.P.Raval waives service of rule on behalf of respondent- State. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. Applicant is in jail since 26.8.2010.2. In addition to the above, he drew my attention tot he nature of allegations in the complaint which only disclose offence punishable under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The offence under Sections 376 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code were added later on. He drew my attention to the statement of the girl recorded by the I.O on 24.8.2010 to contend that there were friendly relations between the applicant and the girl.4. Considering the above prima facie aspects of the matter, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I-155/2010 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to follow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The instant application is preferred u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicants seeking regular bail in connection with Radhanpur police station C.R.No.II 126 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506(2) r/w.Section 114 of the IPC.2. Mr.M.B.Rana, learned advocate representing the applicants seek permission to withdraw the bail application qua the applicant No.5 Ramesh Kishanbhai Jandawala. Permission as prayed for is granted.3. For the remaining applicants, viz. applicants No.1 to 4, Mr.Rana, learned advcoate submitted that considering the FIR and the alleged role played by those applicants, they deserve regular bail. It is submitted that earlier the applicants had preferred regular bail application before this Hon'ble Court, but at that time, the investigation was on and chargesheet was not filed and, therefore, reserving the liberty to file bail application after chargesheet is filed, said bail application was not pressed.4. Mr.A.J.Desai, learned APP, rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Notice. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Notice for the respondents.2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:-"(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order to quashed and set aside the impugned communication/letter dated 06.12.2010 passed by the present respondent authorities at Annexure-D to this petition.(B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the present respondent authorities to give the appointment to the present petitioner on the post of Asst. Police Sub Inspector (unarmed) w.e.f. 28.11.2010 with all consequential benefit to which the present petitioner is entitled too.(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships may kindly be please to direct the present respondent authorities to give the appointment to the present petitioner to the post of Asst. Poli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Pursuant to order dated 24.1.2011, learned advocate Mr.Panchal has filed an affidavit of one Abdul Raheman Ahmedbhai Sheth, wherein he has tendered unconditional apology for inadvertent mistake committed in taking out Xerox copy of the document for the purpose of filing the same at Annexure-F (collectively). It is specifically mentioned in the affidavit that "I further say that I would not have got any advantage, neither I have been at a more advantageous position in the facts of my case by not annexing the two pages of the Partnership deed at Annexure-F (Collectively) at page no.23." Learned advocate for the petitioner also invited attention of the Court to page No.24 wherein the name of all four partners are set out. Learned advocate submitted that if at all he wanted to suppress information regarding names of the partners, he would not have produced page No.24.1.1 In view of that, the unconditional apology is accepted.1.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has produced complete ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard Mr. Satyen B Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 4, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Dharmesh D. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.5.2. It is submitted by Mr. Satyen B. Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner that by way of an advertisement, 259 posts were advertised for appointment of Vidya Sahayak. The petitioner is physically disabled and as per provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, 3% reservation should be given to physically disabled persons. 3. Therefore, out of 259 posts, eight posts should have been reserved for physically disabled persons. It is contended that instead of eight posts, the respondents have filled-in seven posts in the said category and the petitioner has not been given appointment. It is further submitted that certain irregularities...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Leave to amend the prayer clause.2. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.3. At the outset, Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant would deposit the amount levied by way of penalty, if not already paid, within a period of 10 days from today.4. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in a Civil Application filed in an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order staying the order of penalty is unwarranted.5. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that in the peculiar facts of the present case, interest of justice would be served if the interim relief is granted subject to the applicant depositing the entire amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. RULE. Learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The offences alleged against them are punishable under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the maximum punishment prescribed under the law is of three years imprisonment. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners may be released on suitable conditions.2. Considering the above submissions, I find that the petitioners are required to be released on bail, pending trial. However, considering the fact that they are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, in the bird Sanctuary of Nal Sarovar, they should be kept out of the said area to prevent future repetition of such incidents, till the trial is over. Under the circumstances, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in connection with Ranagadh Round Crime NO. 1 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. RULE. Learned APP, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.2. The petitioners, by way of this petition, seek anticipatory bail in connection with the complaint, bearing C.R. No. I-66/10, filed before Wankaner City Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections-323, 325, 504, 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-135 of the Bombay Police Act.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged complaint is an offshoot of a land deal, with regard to which certain disputes are going on between the parties. He, further, submitted that, subsequently, on the allegation that one mobile phone was stolen, Section-394 of the Indian Penal Code is also added.4. In addition to the above submission, I have also perused the nature of allegations in the complaint. Taking into account the statement of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they have no criminal antecedents, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The application is filed u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Datha police station C.R.No.I 58 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 366, 376(g), 504, 506(2), 450 r/w.Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.2. Mr.Tolia, learned advocate representing the applicant submitted that the police investigation is over and chargesheet is filed. Considering the FIR and more particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, who is aged about 20 years, it transpires that the only role assigned to the applicant is that between 27.8.2010 and 2.9.2010 when the prosecutrix was under confinement, he provided food by bringing the same in tiffin. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case, the incident of alleged kidnapping occurred on 24.8.2010 and from 24.8.2010 to 26.8.2010, the applicant was not at all in the picture. It is further submitted that almost similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Vanrajbhai Prabhatbhai Kuvadiya, Sabbirhusen Vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the charge-sheet is filed, which is a successive bail application after Criminal Misc. Application No. 12798 of 2010 has been withdrawn.2. The applicant accused is charged with having committed offence under Sections 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of IPC for which FIR being I.C.R.No. 47 of 2010 has been registered with Jalalpore Police Station, District: Navsari.3. Learned Counsel Mr. B.A.Surti for the applicant referred to the papers and submitted that as the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed, present application may be allowed considering his role. He submitted that the applicant accused has merely signed as a witness in the Satakhat/Agreement to Sale. He also submitted that the other co-accused has been released as per the order passed by this Hon'ble Court (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J.) in Criminal Misc. Application No.15690 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!