Gujarat High CourtVallabhdas vs State on 21 May, 2010Author:M.R. ShahBench:M.R. ShahGujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/5377/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5377 of 2010
 

 
======================================


 

VALLABHDAS
SAVJIBHAI TANK - Applicant
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
 

======================================
Appearance
: 
MR
C P CHAMPANERI for the Applicant. 
MS CHETANA SHAH, APP for
Respondent No.1. 
None for Respondent
No.2. 
====================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/05/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER1.		The
present application underSection 439(2)of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred by the applicant herein   original
complainant for cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent
No.2 herein and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated
10/05/2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in
Criminal Misc. Application No.253 of 2010, by which, the petitioner
was released on regular bail in connection with the complaint being
C.R.No.I/47/08 registered with Manavadar Police Station for the
offences punishable underSections 407,420,465,467,468,471,472,474,114,120(B),419&201of the Indian Penal Code.2.		At
the outset, it is required to be noted that the name of respondent-accused was not disclosed in the FIR. However, his name came to be
disclosed in the further investigation underSection 173(8)of  the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also required to be noted that even
respondent No.2   original accused was granted  anticipatory bail
by the learned Sessions Court and pursuant to the order passed by
learned Sessions Judge, respondent No.2 appeared before the Police
and was arrested within stipulated time as ordered by the learned
Sessions Court while granting anticipatory bail and there is no
breach of any of the conditions of the anticipatory bail by
respondent No.2.3.		Considering
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has exercised the discretion and released
respondent No.2 on bail, it cannot be said that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in
him and/or has committed any error in releasing respondent No.2 on
bail. No case is made out to exercise the jurisdiction underSection
439(2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to cancel the bail
granted in favour of respondent No.2.4.		Under
the circumstances, the present application deserves to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.[M.R.SHAH,J]
 

 


 


*diptiTop