IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 106 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH ================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================ SULEMAN ISMAIL SIDAT Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH Date : 26/09/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. SA Qureshi for the petitioner and Ld. APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent.
2 The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 24/1/2013 passed below exh. 23 in NDPS Case No. 8/2011 by the Special Court [NDPS], Surat. On perusal of such impugned order, it becomes clear that the petitioner is a surety of original accused and since the accused has failed to remain present, the trial Court has issued notice and warrant upon the petitioner being surety of the original accused. The impugned order confirms that after service of such notice and warrant, the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court as surety of the original accused and prayed for the time on different occasions i.e. on 5/12/2012, 2/1/2013 and 11/1/2013. The Court has granted all such applications and, therefore, on 24/1/2013 when present petitioner – surety, has requested the Court to grant long adjournment so as to enable him to produce the accused, the trial Court has refused to grant long adjournment and passed the order to issue attachment warrant against the present petitioner so as to recover the amount of bail from him. The record shows that the original accused was released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- and, therefore, on 11/6/2012 present petitioner has furnished bail bond for Rs.20,000/-, which was accepted by the trial Court. Therefore, pursuant to such order dated 24/1/2013 an amount of Rs.20,000/- was required to be recovered by such attachment warrant.
3 Such order dated 24/1/2013 was challenged by filing this revision on 6/2/2013 wherein ad-interim relief against the attachment was granted on 2/5/2013 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- before the Special Court, Surat, in NDPS Case No. 8/2011.
4 Pursuant to such order, petitioner has submitted that he has deposited such amount before the trial Court and produced receipt no. 1322645 dated 26/6/2013.
5 In view of such deposit, practically order dated 24/1/2013 has been executed and, therefore, now attachment warrant need not required to be executed. However, since such warrant was issued by an order, a formal order to quash such warrant is required to be passed by allowing this revision application. Thereby this revision application is allowed, whereby order dated 24/1/2013 passed below exh. 23 in NDPS Case No. 8/2011 by the Special Court [NDPS], Surat, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.