Dismissed

State of Gujarat v. Mukeshji Parbatji Malotariya(Thakor) through Police Inspector Deesa Rural Police Station

Gujarat HC24 Aug 2022CR.MA/9321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's application for cancellation of bail. The Court held that the Sessions Court's reasons were adequate, conditions were met, the trial progressed without breach, and the four-year delay discouraged interference.

What did the court decide?

Application for cancellation of bail dismissed; bail order remained in force.

State of Gujarat Vs Mukeshji Parbatji Malotariya(Thakor)… — Bail and Remand | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

R/CR.MA/9321/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9321 of 2018

¶4

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

¶5

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

Versus

¶7

MUKESHJI PARBATJI MALOTARIYA(THAKOR) THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR DEESA RURAL POLICE STATION

¶8

================================================================ Appearance:

¶9

MR. HARDIK SONI, APP, for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MEHUL H RATHOD(701) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶12

Date : 24/08/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶13

[1] This application is filed by the State for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

[2] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by the Sessions Court, wherein it is indicated the manner in which the incident has taken place and the fact that except of the respondent no other individual would have any interest. It is submitted that the incident has taken place out of the respondent suspecting an affair of the deceased with the wife of the respondentTonal, as a result of this, there was clear motive for the respondent to assault the deceased. Learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the nature of evidence which consist of Call Detail Record at abnormal time indicating his complacency with the offence.

¶15

[3] Learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent is not even named in the FIR and the respondent is arraigned in the offence by way of

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

R/CR.MA/9321/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022

¶18

circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the Sessions Court has recorded sufficient reasons to exercise discretion in favour of the respondent and has also imposed several conditions so as to protect the interest of ongoing trial. It is submitted that the trial has progressed sufficiently and there is no report of any untoward incident and therefore, as long time has lapsed after the respondent has been enlarged on regular bail, the application may be dismissed.

¶19

[4] The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The respondent was enlarged on regular bail by an order dated 17.03.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No.158 of 2018 in connection with FIR being I-C.R. No.15 of 2018 with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha for offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 120(B) of the IPC and under Section 135 of the GP Act.

¶20

[5] The incident took place apparently on account of the fact that the deceased allegedly had an illicit affair with Sonal, wife of the respondent and on that basis, the respondent was prime suspect. However, from the FIR it appears that the respondent is not named in the FIR and only on the basis of the relation between the witness-Sonal and the deceased, the respondent is arraigned as an accused. The Court has perused the order passed by the Sessions Court, wherein the Sessions Court has attributed sufficient reasons to exercise discretion in favour of the respondent. The Sessions Court has also imposed several conditions, which in the opinion of the Court, are sufficient to protect the interest of the witnesses as well as on going trial. As submitted by learned advocate for the respondent and not controverted, the trial has progressed and there is no

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

R/CR.MA/9321/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2022

¶23

untoward incident or any breach of condition imposed by the Sessions Court.

¶24

[6] The order was passed in the year 2018, wherein the application for cancellation has remained pending over a period of four years. In that view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to interfere. The application therefore deserves to be and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶25

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

¶26

SIDDHARTH

¶27

Page 3 of 3

State of Gujarat v. Mukeshji Parbatji Malotariya(Thakor) through Police Inspector Deesa Rural Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Gujarat v. Mukeshji Parbatji Malotariya(Thakor) through Police Inspector Deesa Rural Police Station

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

Sharda Chimanbhai Lalbhai Vs Dinesh Mohanbhai Prajapati

Smt .Sadguna C U Shah Maternity Hospital Vs Pushpaben Jyotishbhai Vaghela

Pushpaben Jyotishbhai Vaghela Vs Shri Sadguna C U Shah Ladies Hospital and Nursing Home

Chandubhai Shankarbhai Ambalal Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Premnath @ Pintu Rambharat Upadhyay Vs State of Gujarat

Nitinbhai Pithabhai Shreemali Vs State of Gujarat