Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 7 docs - [View All]
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 135 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 294(a) in The Indian Penal Code

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Gujarat High Court
Jignesh vs State on 30 September, 2008
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8048/2008	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8048 of 2008
 

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

 

JIGNESH
@ JAGO MAVJIBHAI PARMAR & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
HN JHALA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR. M.R.MENGDEY ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 30/09/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Present application is filed by the petitioners-original accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail in connection with compliant being C.R. No. I-C.R. No. 444 of 2007 registered with Naranpura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 294(a),114 of the IPC and under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act.

2. This application is sufficiently adjourned at least for 9 times and all throughout the learned advocate for the petitioners is on leave note and / or sick note. Today also, it is reported that there is a leave note of Shri Zala, learned advocate for the petitioners. As the present application for bail is sufficiently adjourned, it is taken up for hearing today ex-parte.

3. Petitioners are charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 294(a),114 of the IPC and under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act and each accused has been attributed specific role in committing the offences. It appears that, it is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that looking to the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report, it cannot be said that the petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased. However, considering the role attributed to the petitioners, they have beaten the deceased by kicks and fists blows and they dashed the head of the deceased against the wall and looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offences alleged and the punishment which can be imposed, according to this Court this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. At present it is not possible to consider the separate role of the applicant and all the accused. It appears from statement and allegations in the FIR all the accused have participated in committing the offences which has resulted into the death of the husband of the complainant. Under the circumstances, present application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

(M.R.SHAH, J.) kaushik     Top