NIRMALKUMAR TULSIRAM RAKHECHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MS. Kruti Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2-accused no. 1 was not present when the matter was called in the first round. Thereafter, when the matter is called on in the second round, MS. Kruti Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no .2-accused has requested for time to file affidavit-in-reply. This court was not inclined to grant the said request in view of the fact that on the last date of hearing i.e. on 06.05.2011, time was granted to MS. Shah to file reply which has not been done yet. The court on 06.05.2011 dismissed the other cognate matters qua co-accused but had specifically stated that the present matter qua accused no. 1 required serious consideration and that the court was inclined to cancel the bail. However, as a last chance, time was granted to MS.Shah to file reply.

(2.) THE present application has filed praying to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2 by order dated 20.10.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2372 of 2010 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat.

(3.) MR. Padhya, learned advocate appearing for the applicant-complainant submitted that looking to the statement of Nortanlal Tulsiram Rakhecha-father of the victim, the harassment for car and five lakhs rupees by her husband and in-laws is clearly borne out. It is clearly stated that the victim had frequently visited her parental house complaining about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the respondent no. 2 and other family members. He submitted that the marriage span of the victim and the respondent no. 2 is only of one year and during this short span the victim was harassed to the extent of killing her.