Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 592 (GUJ)

GOVINDBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI CHAUHAN v. STATE

2000-07-19

A.M.KAPADIA, J.N.BHATT

body2000
J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Service of notice of rule is waived by Mr. K. P. Raval, learned A. P. P. for the respondent State. ( 2 ) THIS group of six Criminal Miscellaneous Applications, claiming regular bail, under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code for short hereinafter), during the pendency of their Conviction Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 1993, are inter-connected and raise, virtually, common questions and, therefore, upon request, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) IT may be highlighted, at the outset, that though in terms of number of applications it would come to six, in substance, four original accused persons, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 1993, have invoked the aids of provisions of Section 389 of the Code for the simple reason that some of the names are common in some of the applications. ( 4 ) AFTER having given our anxious thoughts to the relevant, prima facie, material, facts and the submissions advanced before us by Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners/convicts and Mr. Raval, learned A. P. P. , without entering into the merits of contentions propounded in the appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order, in our opinion, out of four petitioners/convicts, who are undergoing sentence under Section 302, etc. , of IPC, pursuant to the impugned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1993, in respect of convicts/original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 i. e. , (i) Govindbhai Shambhubhai, (ii) Jamnaben Govindbhai and (iii) Kaliben Govindbhai, there is a fit and proper case for the exercise of our powers under Section 389 (1) of the Code, as they are covered by the directions, observations and guidelines issued by this Court (Coram: M. S. Parikh and H. K. Rathod, JJ.) in the judgment dated 21. 12. 1999 rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7337 of 1999, in Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1993. 12. 1999 rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7337 of 1999, in Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1993. ( 5 ) IN so far as convict/original accused No. 1 Govindbhai Shambhubhai is concerned, he is aged more than 73, whereas, convict/original accused No. 3 - Jamnaben, wife of Govindbhai is concerned, she is aged 68 and, whereas, convict/original accused No. 4 - Kaliben, daughter of Govindbhai is concerned, she is aged about 27, who have, as per information on record, undergone the period of custody for more than 7 years and 6 months and, again, in so far as convict/original accused No. 4 Kaliben Govindbhai is concerned, she is married and she has been threatened by her husband to cut the matrimonial ties and he would go for second marriage if she is not enlarged on bail within a reasonable period of time. Apart from this being a special ground, there is another special circumstance attributable to the case of convict/original accused No. 4 - Kaliben. She is a daughter of convict/original accused No. 1 - Govindbhai and convict/original accused No. 3 - Jamnaben, who are aged and ailing, and looking to the serious illness, some person is necessary to attend them. All the family members have been undergoing sentence and that is why non-release of convict/accused No. 4 - Kaliben Govindbhai would not only result into an insulation of the relationship between the parents and the daughter but will operate as a great hardship to the aging and ailing parents without the help of some members of the family. ( 6 ) IN so far as the convict/original accused No. 2 - Maganbhai Govindbhai is concerned, we have to raise our hands in helplessness stating that his case does not fall in any of the categories, elaborately, inscribed and enumerated in the aforesaid decision of this Court and, again, he is 32 years old. Therefore, his request for being enlarged on regular bail, during the pendency of the appeal, merits, rejection and, accordingly, it is rejected. Therefore, his request for being enlarged on regular bail, during the pendency of the appeal, merits, rejection and, accordingly, it is rejected. ( 7 ) IN the facts and circumstances enumerated hereinabove and settled proposition of laws and the guidelines and directions incorporated in the aforementioned judgment of this Court, the petitioner convict/original accused No. 1 Govindbhai Shambhubhai, the petitioner convict/original accused No. 3 - Jamnaben Govindbhai and the petitioner convict/original accused No. 4 - Kaliben Govindbhai are directed to be enlarged on regular bail till the hearing of the Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 1993 on merits, on following terms and conditions: (I) Each one of them shall enter into a personal bond of Rs. 10,000. 00 (Rupees ten thousand only) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Court; (ii) Each one of them shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Gujarat without the prior permission of the concerned Sessions Court. ( 8 ) THE request of the petitioner convict/original accused No. 2 - Maganbhai Govindbhai for regular bail is rejected. ( 9 ) IN the result, all the above mentioned six Misc. Criminal Applications are disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. ( 10 ) DIRECT service is permitted. .