Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1902 (GUJ)

Siraj Musabhai Munshi v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-02

C.L.SONI

body2016
ORDER : C.L SONI, J. The preset application is filed to delete the condition of directing the petitioner not to enter the district and city of Surat till the trial of sessions case in connection with the F.I.R being Cr.No I-46 of 2014 registered with Chock Bazar Police Station at Annexure-A is over. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Surti for the applicant sought to contend that the condition not to enter the district and city of Surat is imposed by this Court while deciding the application for cancellation of bail though it was not a case for cancellation of bail. He argued on merits of the original application for cancellation of bail by contending that the applicant was falsely implicated in the offences alleged and urged that this Court may entertain the present application and delete the condition imposed by this Court. 3. The Court having heard learned advocate Mr. Surti for the petitioner, finds that no case is made out for deletion of the condition imposed by this Court. It is required to note that it was during the hearing of the application for cancellation of bail, statement was made by the learned advocate, who earlier represented the applicant that the applicant was agreeable to remain out of the district and city of Surat till the trial was over to allay apprehension of the complainant and her witness for smooth trial of the case. The Court not only in view of such statement and having regard to the facts of the case, deemed it proper to direct the applicant to remain out of district and city of Surat till the trial is over instead of canceling the bail of the applicant. Such order directing the applicant to not enter the district and city of Surat was passed by this Court on 29/06/2016 and now within very short time, the present application is filed through another advocate seeking to delete the said condition. The change of lawyer to make such application would in fact amount to back out of the statement made before this Court by the applicant through his lawyer, who appeared when the application of cancellation of bail was decided. The change of lawyer to make such application would in fact amount to back out of the statement made before this Court by the applicant through his lawyer, who appeared when the application of cancellation of bail was decided. It is required to note that the Court imposed condition upon applicant not to enter the district and city of Surat not only on the basis of the statement of lawyer but also having seen the allegations in the FIR, statement of the witness recorded by the police alleging administering threat to the said witness not to give evidence against the applicant. 4. In above view of the matter, the Court finds that the application is not required to be entertained. Hence, it is rejected.