(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) 1.0 Present application is filed by one Dhanjibhai Parsottambhai Zala, who describes himself to be the elder brother of the convict - Nitinbhai Bhurabhai Zala. One Nanjibhai Patel is present before the Court and states that he is brother in law (Sala) of Dhanjibhai Parsottambhai Zala. As Dhanjibhai was not well and was having 'Asthmatic' problem, he has left for village 'Pachchhe', Taluka: Gariyadhar, Dist. Bhavnagar. He requested that he be permitted to argue this matter. The permission was granted.
1.1 On inquiry as to why the application is not filed by Bhurabhai - the father of the convict, during the course of argument, it transpired that, as there is a marriage of son of Dhanjibhai, he has filed the application and that Bhurabhai is of advanced age. It was put to him, if Bhurabhai is younger to Dhanjibhai, how come Bhurabhai is of advanced age and is not able to file this application, the party in person has no explanation for the same.
1.2 During the course of argument, it further transpired that earlier also, Dhanjibhai had filed an application for Temporary Bail on the same ground (the marriage of the applicant i.e. Dhanjibhai P. Zala). On perusal of the application (Criminal Misc. Application No. 459 of 2012 - the present one), there is no mention made about the earlier application. On perusal of papers, it is found that earlier Criminal Misc. Application No. 17535 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 1879 of 2006 was filed, which came to be dismissed by this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel and Honourable Mr. Justice Paresh Upadhyay) by order dated 29th December 2011. The relevant part of the order reads as under:
"Considering facts and circumstances, it appears that the ground is not such where is (sic. his) presence can be said to be indispensable. Hence, discretion does not deserve to be exercised..."
1.3 During the course of the argument, party in person stated that the present application is drafted by learned advocate Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj.
The party in person was asked to call the learned advocate. The sister of the party in person, who is also present in the Court, who stated that she is a widow and is working in an 'NGO' was sent by the party in person to call the learned advocate.
2.0 The Court kept the matter to be attended after taking the 'Habeas Corpus' matters in chamber. On resumption at 1:10 p.m., the party in person tenders unconditional apology and states that he may be pardoned for having approached the Court by the present application for seeking Temporary Bail on the same ground - marriage of the son of the applicant. He assures the Court that in future, he will be careful and such conduct will not be repeated.
3.0 Taking the lenient view in the matter, the apology tendered by the party in person is accepted. However, it is deemed fit that Registry be directed to send a copy of this order to be kept in the History-Ticket/Sheet of the convict.
3.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Kodekar, who is appearing in the matter, be given a copy of this order to ensure that the same is kept in the History-Ticket/Sheet of the convict.
4.0 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is dismissed.
[ Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Top