1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2013
  6. /
  7. January

<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0a6999e9f94b0">[email&#xA0;protected]</a> Vijay Murlidhar Udhwani vs State Of Gujarat &amp;

High Court Of Gujarat|18 October, 2013
Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin N.Oza assisted by Mr.Imran H.Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned sr.counsel has shown several factual details on record and submitted that this is a clear case of mis-identity, stating that though the name of original accused in FIR and other police papers is Vinod Daulatram Sindhi, residing at Vaishali Cinema Road, Nadiad, who is disclosed as wanted accused in Prohibition C.R.No.5008 of 2012 dated 4.2.2012 before Ahmedabad City police station, copy of which is produced at Annexure A (page 22 onwards) as well as in another F.I.R being 5024 of 2012 dated 20.7.2012, copy of which is produced at Annexure C (page 47 onwards) wherein also name of concerned person is noted as Vinod Sindhi only, and though the name of the petitioner is Vinod @ Vijay Murlidhar Udhwani and though he has nothing to do or he is not Vinod Sindhi, whose name is disclosed in both these F.I.Rs, if respondents passed an order to detain the petitioner, this is a clear case of passing order of detention against wrong person. Moreover, it is also stated that so far as co-accused in 2nd F.I.R is concerned, namely, Parbatsinh Devsinh Rajput, his detention order has already been quashed by this Court (Corarm: Hon ble Mr.Justice A.J.Desai) by judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 in Special Civil Application No.12273 of 2012. It is also submitted that order of detention against the co-accused of first F.I.R was also quashed by this Court. Copy of such order is also placed on record at Annexure B. Therefore, learned senior counsel has submitted that this is a clear case of passing an order of detention against wrong person.
Learned sr.counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner has nothing to do with Nadiad City and he is residing at Vadodara. To prove the identity of the petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks to amend the petition by submitting a draft amendment. Draft amendment be taken on record. Draft amendment is allowed as prayed for.
3. It would be appropriate for the respondents to verify the identity of accused no.2 disclosed in the first F.I.R and the present petitioner by appropriate information and evidence.
4. However, considering such position, though learned AGP is seeking time to verify such fact before passing any interim order, it would be necessary to protect the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to detain the petitioner if he is not detained till 11.30 a.m. today. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be necessary for the Registry to immediately communicate this order to the respondent no.2 by fax which number shall be provided by the petitioner.
5. Rule, returnable on 22.10.2013. List the matter on 22.10.2013 at 11 a.m. and with clear instruction that the matter shall be taken up first.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.