Disposed

Dinesh Lakhnlal Meena v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC16 Oct 2018CR.MA/18751/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat disposed of the third successive bail application by the petitioner as withdrawn. The applicant requested liberty to approach the Court again after two months. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn without deciding on the merits of the bail plea.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of as withdrawn. Permission granted to approach the Court once again on expiry of the period of two months.

Dinesh Lakhnlal Meena Vs State of Gujarat — Corruption | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

R/CR.MA/18751/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18751 of 2018

¶4

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

¶5

DINESH LAKHNLAL MEENA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK SONI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

MR S V RAJU, SR. ADVOCATE WITH SAMTA R GODIWALA(8898) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

¶14

Date : 16/10/2018

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

This 3^rd successive bail application for regular bail preferred by the applicant in connection with I-C.R.No.2 of 2017 registered with ACB Police Station, Dahod for the offences punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶17

After detailed consideration of submissions

¶18

made by learned advocates on both the sides,

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

R/CR.MA/18751/2018 ORDER

¶21

this Court had rejected the first application
for regular bail preferred by the applicant

¶22

after filing of the chargesheet on
12.10.2017.

¶23

3.Subsequent application was moved being
Criminal Misc. Application No.7481 of 2018 on
11.05.2018 which was eventually withdrawn by
the applicant, who was also given a liberty
to approach this Court at the end of four
months if the trial does not progress
substantially.

¶24

This Court has heard the learned advocate, Mr.Ashish Dagli appearing for the applicant,

¶25

who has urged that entire case is based on
the documentary evidences and all evidences
have been duly collected by the Investigating
Agency. Looking to the voluminous record to
be proved, the trial may take a long time as
only three witnesses have been so far
examined in all, the list is of 27 witnesses.
He has further urged that at no point of time

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

R/CR.MA/18751/2018 ORDER

¶28

the applicant-accused had sought time before
the Trial Court. He has also further urged
that the applicant is in jail from
14.08.2017. The maximum punishment prescribed
under the law is of 10 years and therefore,
the applicant be given the regular bail.

¶29

5.This application has been strongly resisted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Hardik Soni for respondent-State. As per

¶30

the instructions received from his counter
part, he has urged that only three to four
more witnesses are to be examined, which
shall not take more than 30 days, provided
all parties cooperate. He has further urged
that no leniency being shown considering the
fact that he was absconding for good six
months after the incident. It is further
contended that considering his position and
bearing in mind the fact that the muddamaal
is yet not received from his maternal uncle
(Mamaji).

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

R/CR.MA/18751/2018 ORDER

¶33

Learned senior advocate, Mr.S.V.Raju appearing with learned advocate, Ms.Samta Godiwala for respondent No.2 fervently resisted this application on the ground that progress is substantial, the trial is likely to be over soon. It is further urged that on couple of occasions, the accused has sought time and therefore, it is wrong to say that he has been cooperating in the process to allow the Trial Court to progress on the front of the Sessions Case.

¶34

7.Having heard learned advocates on both the
sides, at the out set it is needed to be
noted that on merit the application of the
present applicant for successive bail had
been rejected by this Court in the month of
October, 2017. Therefore, this Court is not
to grant of bail on the merit of the matter
without giving separate reasons those aspects
will continue to hold the field.

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

R/CR.MA/18751/2018 ORDER

¶37

8.So far as his present application is
concerned, essentially on two counts namely,
this slow pace of trial and long
incarceration are the grounds raised by the
applicant.

¶38

9.Learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for the applicant, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of this application, with a liberty to approach once again on expiry of the period of two months.

¶39

10. Permission, as sought for, is granted. Application stands disposed of as withdrawn. Notice is discharged.

¶40

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J)

¶41

M.M.MIRZA

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Dinesh Lakhnlal Meena v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Lakhnlal Meena v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmanbhai Hamirbhai Vasan Vs State of Gujarat

Hans Ispat Ltd. through Ravikant Chitamani Paradkar Vs State of Gujarat

Jani Priyank Jitubhai Vs State of Gujarat

Jigneshkumar Veljibhai Tank Vs State of Gujarat

Mukesh Nandlal Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Mukesh Nandlal Shah Vs State of Gujarat