BHIMSHI RAMBHAI GOJIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-264
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 22,2015

Bhimshi Rambhai Gojiya Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MATHEW ZACHARIA V. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI LALLUBHAI LUNI VS. DEVRAJ BHALABHAI [REFERRED TO]
GULAM ALI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
K C EYYA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
BALAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
CHHAJJU RAM GODARA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
HAJIALISHER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
AKIL @ JAVED VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH VS. SINGHA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AMIYA KUMAR SEN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') filed by an under -trial accused through jail, arrested in connection with the I -CR No.82 of 2012 registered at the Jamnagar city B - Division Police Station, of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of the Atrocity Act. It appears from the materials on record that the accused was arrested on 31st August 2012. On completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of the learned Special Judge at Jamnagar which came to be registered as the Special Atrocity Case No.23 of 2012. It appears that the accused is in custody as an under -trial prisoner past two years and two months. In his application dated 15th November 2014 forwarded to this Court through the Jailor of the Jamnagar District Jail, he has prayed that his right of speedy trial has been infringed as there has been no progress in the trial. He has also tried to make out few grounds on merits, more particularly, the defence of consent of the prosecutrix. In his application, he has stated that he was in love with the girl, and even as on today, the girl is ready and willing to get married to him, however, her parents are highly opposed to such relations. It also appears from the materials on record that the victim, after the incident, got married to a boy named Sunil Rana, a resident of village Ranavav. It also appears that the applicant is a married person and a father of two minor children. It has been further stated that he was earlier ordered to be released on bail, but it appears that the bail was cancelled by the High Court. Mr.K.P.Rawal, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this bail application filed by an under -trial accused through jail directly before this Court. The objection is raised in the wake of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: K.J.Thaker, J.) dated 1 st January 2015 in Criminal Misc. Application No.21912 of 2014 filed by one Pramod Narhari Manjrekar. It appears that the said Pramod Narhari Manjrekar, an under -trial prisoner, was ordered to be released on temporary bail by this Court. He prayed for extension of the temporary bail. While deciding the application for extension of temporary bail, the learned Judge passed the following order : "1. This is an application for temporary bail by the applicant, who is an under -trial prisoner, whose date of arrest is shown to be 23.12.2011. The applicant has been arrested in connection with a heinous offence punishable under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. My learned Brother Judge had, earlier, shown discretion in the matter by entertaining and granting the same vide order dated 24.12.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.21539 of 2014, though, the applicant is an under -trial prisoner and he had not moved the Court of the competent jurisdiction.
(2.)It, now, appears that the discretion, which was exercised earlier, is sought to be asked as of a right. It is, therefore, CLARIFIED that from now onwards all the UNDER -TRIAL prisoners shall send their applications to the concerned / competent Court DIRECTLY, instead of filing such applications before this Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C..
(3.)So far as the present application is concerned, same lacks merit and deserves dismissal. The applicant, herein, has not moved the Court of competent jurisdiction before approaching this Court. This Court has already shown leniency and granted temporary bail to the applicant for a period of eight days, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and same does not deserve extension.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.