CR.MA/6838/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 6838 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= JENUL @ JANU @ THUTHIYO ABDUL JABBAR ANSARI - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR IM MUNSHI for Applicant(s) : 1, MS ARCHANA RAVAL APP for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 03/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Ms.Archana Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 2. Present application is filed by the applicant original accused – Jenul @ Janu @ Thuthiyo Abdul Jabbar Ansari CR.MA/6838/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT under sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail in connection with the complaint being C.R. No.I-19 of 2007 registered with DCB Police Station. The applicant is charged for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 364-A, 368, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code and under sec.135 of the Bombay Police Act. The allegations against the applicant and other accused are that the applicant and other accused kidnapped the son of the complainant named Krutarth alias Kinjal and was detained for more than 3 days in one house and during that period, the applicant and others telephoned the complainant and asked ransom of Rs.1 Crore and thereafter they demanded Rs.50 Lacs and it was not possible for the complainant to give such a huge amount, the son of the complainant named Krutarth alias Kinjal was killed. That thereafter the applicant and other accused came to be arrested. 3. Looking to the chargesheet papers, it appears that prima facie case is made out against the applicant and the applicant seems to be main accused, who telephoned the complainant and asked for ransom and killed the son of the complainant named Krutarth alias Kinjal. Looking to the accusation, seriousness of the offence and CR.MA/6838/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT punishment likely to be imposed upon the accused and the prima facie case, the applicant cannot be released on bail. The applicant has relied upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram ; D.N. Patel, J.) in Criminal Misc. Application No.84 of 2008 dtd.7/2/2008 releasing co-accused Santosh @ Bholu s/o. Shivshankar Tiwari on bail. However, looking to the said order, it appears that no reasons are assigned for releasing the said co-accused on bail. Apart from that, looking to the chargesheet papers and the allegations made against the applicant accused, the case of the applicant with that of co-accused named Santosh @ Bholu s/o. Shivshankar Tiwari is not comparable and therefore, on parity, the applicant is not required to be released on bail. As stated above and looking to the seriousness of the offence, accusation and the role attributed to the applicant, the applicant – original accused is not required to be released on bail. Hence, the application deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. [M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik