1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2010
  6. /
  7. January

Mohammed vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|29 October, 2010


This application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail by the applicant, who came to be arrested in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No. I - 1 of 2010 with DCB Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
This is a successive bail application. Earlier, the applicant had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 3257 of 2010 through Advocate Mr. Sikander Saiyed. The matter was argued at length and the same was rejected by a speaking order dated 26.04.2010. Thereafter the applicant has preferred the present application through another advocate.
In the order dated 26.04.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3257 of 2010 this Court has observed as under:
"I have considered the role attributed to the applicant which is reflected in the F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application. I have carefully taken into consideration the panchama of muddamal articles seized by the investigating agency, F.S.L. report, statement of witnesses and other material produced for my perusal. The applicant along with the other accused was found in possession of gas cutter and other instrument used for the purpose of changing the number plates and tampering with the chasis number in garage. The F.S.L. report mentions tampering with chasis number and number plates of the vehicles. Thus, considering the role attributed to the applicant, nature of offence, manner in which the offence is committed by the applicant along with the other accused, provisions of Sections 406, 467, 471, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and quantum of punishment etc., I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to claim discretionary relief, as prayed for in the application.
The above application was also filed after filing of the charge sheet. The only subsequent change sought to be pressed into service by the applicant is that a co-accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 21.09.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8605 of 2010. The same cannot be said to be a subsequent change, much less a substantial change.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in the application. The application deserves to be rejected, and is hereby rejected.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Mohammed vs State


High Court Of Gujarat

29 October, 2010