High CourtsSingle Bench

Saiyadulla Rasul Bhorniya vs State of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 15 October 2012 · Citation: (2012) 10 GUJ CK 0004

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anant S. Dave, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 14377 of 2012 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11658 of 2011

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 274 words

Honourable Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave

1.

Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Amit N. Chaudhary for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent-State. In this application, seeking modification of one of the conditions of bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ''the Code'') vide First Information Reported registered as I-C.R. No. 113/2008 with Navsari Rural Police Station on the ground that the applicant, his sister and mother had applied for ''Haj'' before the Haj Committee of India, Mumbai and they are selected for ''Haj'' by the above Committee. In order to undertake this pilgrimage, the applicant is required to deposit his passport pursuant to the order dated 23.08.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11658/2011 passed by this Court while enlarging him on bail on bail. In addition, the antecedents and credentials of the applicant are verified, which is so stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar.

2.

Considering the overall circumstances as above, if the applicant herein prefers an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari to provide the passport for three months for the ''Haj'' pilgrimage, the same be released immediately by keeping a photocopy of the said passport as the last date for the above pilgrimage is 17th October, 2012.

3.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the condition to deposit the passport as passed by this Court is temporarily suspended and will be revived after a period of three months, on the applicant''s return from the ''Haj'' pilgrimage and deposit of his passport before the concerned Court. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted today.