Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1901 (GUJ)

Vinod Nanakram Kumavat v. State of Gujarat

2017-12-07

G.R.UDHWANI

body2017
ORDER : G.R. UDHWANI, J. 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for bail in connection with C.R. No. I-85 of 2016 registered with Paldi Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 376(2)(F)(I), 376D, 370(2)(3)(4), 370(A)(1) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Trafficking Act, under Sections 4, 5(G), 6 and 17 of POCSO Act and under Sections 84, 81 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met by directing expeditious hearing of the case considering the age of the accused. From the facts on record it appears that different accused persons are alleged to have committed the offences on different dates and the material qua such accused can be segregated on the basis of the dates on which the material was found against them and if it is possible to segregate the material on the basis of the dates on which the material was found against particular accused, such set of accused can be tried under one charge. For example on 14.11.2016 eight accused are named in the statement of the victim recorded on 24.11.2016 Thus the court can consider framing of charge against the group of such eight accused if complicity of such accused do not overlap to other date. 4. In the above circumstances, it is recommended to the trial court to consider framing of separate charges qua accused/group of accused relevant to the date of offence alleged against them, and if the charge is already framed, reframing of separate charges as above may be considered so that the time for trying the accused who may not be concerned with other witnesses, is saved. 5. With the above observations, learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws the petition. It is clarified that this court has not entered into merits of the case. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged.