Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Avtar vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|09 July, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. Heard Ms. G. Vijayalakshmi, learned Advocate for applicant and Ms. Shah, learned APP.
2. The present application is taken out by the wife of one of the accused persons of the criminal case for alleged offence punishable under Sections 384, 170, 511 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint regarding the alleged offence came to be filed and registered at Kishanwari Police Station, District Vadodara, bearing C.R.No.I-22 of 2011. The present application is, as mentioned above, taken out by wife of one of the accused persons in the said case and in present application it is requested that the conditions contained in paragraph No.7(g) and 7(h) of order dated 12.10.2011 may be deleted.
3. The said conditions read thus:
"(g) mark his presence at Amraiwadi Police Station, District Ahmedabad initially on 17th October, 2011 and thereafter on every first and fifteenth day of every month, between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.
(h) not to enter into the revenue limits of Vadodara City till the trial is over without prior permission of the Sessions Court, but for marking his presence and attending the Court in connection with this case, the applicant will be free to enter the limits for a period to the extent necessary and will leave the limits of Vadodara City immediately after the case is adjourned."
4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent and necessary to mention that the wife (who has taken out this application) of one of the accused in said criminal case is herself one of the accused in the same case. The wife and her husband both are named as accused persons in the complaint lodged with Kishanwari Police Station, District: Vadodara. The wife who has taken out present application is also enlarged on bail. The husband, one of the accused in the said case, for whom the present application is taken out, is also enlarged on bail vide above mentioned order dated 12.10.2011. Now the applicant pleads that the above mentioned two conditions in the order dated 12.10.2011 may be deleted.
5. It is also pertinent to note that against the accused husband, certain other complaints are also filed and criminal proceedings are pending.
6. The request is made on the ground that the accused person is not keeping good health and is required to undergo medical treatment whereas the daughter of the concerned accused and applicant (who is wife of the accused and is also a co-accused) is studying in a College in Baroda and therefore they are required to stay in Baroda.
7. Ms.
G.Vijayalakshmi, learned Advocate for applicant has submitted that the concerned accused person is presently admitted in hospital and on account of the condition contained in para 7(g) of order dated 12.10.2011 which obliges the concerned accused to mark his presence at Amraiwadi Police Station, Ahmedabad, and that therefore the wife of the concerned accused person (who is also a co-accused) is required to commute between Baroda and Ahmedabad on almost regular basis which also affects the study of the applicant's daughter and causes hardships.
8. The request made in the application is strenuously opposed by learned A.P.P., particularly on the ground that the nature of charges against the concerned accused (and the co-accused i.e. the wife who has taken out this application) are such in view of which it would be appropriate that the concerned accused is required to stay out of the limits of Baroda city, more particularly, because the wife of the concerned accused person is herself a co-accused and she is already enlarged on bail and both are charged for same offence and there is possibility of repetition of similar incident if both are allowed to stay in Baroda city.
9. I have considered the submissions and request of learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also the objection raised by learned APP.
10. Having regard to the fact that the condition contained in para 7(g) of the order dated 12.10.2011 was incorporated at the relevant time in view of the fact that the concerned accused was admitted in hospital at Amraiwadi and request to permit the petitioner to mark his presence in nearby area was made at the relevant time on behalf of the petitioner, the request for modifying the condition in para 7(g) may be considered so as to allow the accused to mark presence at Baroda. The learned APP also has not voiced any objection on this count.
11. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that vide order dated 29.12.2011 passed in one of the applications preferred by the concerned accused i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No.17874 of 2011 which was taken out by the concerned accused/applicant in respect of another FIR/complaint lodged against him, the Court modified the condition obliging him to mark his presence before the Navrangpura Police Station at Ahmedabad by allowing him to mark his presence at Baroda City Police Station, present application can be partly allowed, so that the said accused may not have to mark his presence at two different places, by clarifying that the condition contained in para 7(g) of the said order dated 12.10.2011. Therefore, below mentioned order is passed.
12. The condition contained in para 7(g) of the order dated 12.10.2011 shall stand deleted and instead below mentioned condition shall be incorporated.
"(g) mark his presence at Baroda City Police Station on first day of every month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
13. However, the request to delete the condition in para 7(h) prohibiting the concerned accused from entering in Vadodara city until trial is over except for the purpose of marking his presence or attending the Court i.e. condition in para 7(h) is not accepted and the said request is rejected in view of the nature of allegations and apprehension expressed by learned A.P.P., which does not appear to be unjustified.
14. In view of the aforesaid direction, the concerned accused person will not be required to mark his presence at Ahmedabad, instead he will mark his presence at Baroda City Police Station as per the direction in para 12 above.
15. With the aforesaid clarification and modification the application is partly allowed.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Avtar vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
09 July, 2012