December 19, 1996.
Order:
Rule. Mr. S.R. Divetia, learned A.P.P. waives service of the Rule.
The prisoner is asking for a temporary bail on the ground that his aged father has received some communication from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Radhanpur, asking him to remain present for the rehabilitation programme. The original communication dated September 2, 1996 was presented before us. On the basis of that we had passed oral orders saying that the temporary bail should be granted for a period of two weeks. Anyhow, before we could sign the said orders, the learned A.P.P. Mr. S.R. Divetia, had presented a report dated December 9, 1996 under the signature of D.S.P., Banaskantha at Palanpur, saying that upon the recording of the statement it appears that the aged father of the petitioner-prisoner is not interested in any such rehabilitation programme and, therefore, the petition should not be granted. We have not signed the said orders and in the meanwhile there was a request coming from the learned counsel Mrs. Sharma for some time so that the affidavit of the father of the prisoner could be presented before us. The same has been done today from which it appears that the aged father is very much interested in the rehabilitation scheme.
Therefore, in our opinion, the prisoner is required to be granted temporary bail for a period of two weeks to be counted from the date of his actual release from the prison. We order accordingly. The prisoner shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- before the concerned jail authorities. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.