JAYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.K.J. Panchal for the applicant, learned APP Mr.Dabhi for the respondent State and learned Advocate Mr.S. N. Dave appearing for learned Advocate Mr.Jaimin R. Dave for the First Informant.

(2.) Learned APP would draw the attention of this Court to the order dtd. 2/5/2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein statement of the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant had been recorded that the applicant was ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.1,70,00,000.00 within a period of six months, and whereas the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, to test the bona fide of the applicant, had directed the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 on or before 20/5/2022 and a further amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 on or before 17/6/2022. The applicant was also directed to file an undertaking that she would deposit the said amount within a period of six months and the applicant was also directed to remain present before the Investigating Officer on 16/5/2022. Learned APP would submit that the applicant had remained present on 16/5/2022 and thereafter, the applicant had been once again called on 21/5/2022 with all relevant documents etc., but the applicant had not remained present before the I.O. on that day. Learned APP would also draw the attention of this Court to the fact that the applicant had neither deposited the amount of Rs.25,00,000.00, which was to be deposited on or before 20/5/2022, nor had the applicant deposited the amount of Rs.25,00,000.00, which was to be deposited on or before 17/6/2022. Learned APP would submit that having regard to such a situation the observations of the learned Coordinate Bench that the application shall be rejected, if the applicant does not deposit the aforesaid amount, may be taken into consideration by this Court and the present application may be rejected.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Panchal for the applicant could not dispute the submissions of the learned APP Mr.Dabhi, more particularly learned Advocate wold submit that the applicant is neither receiving his calls nor the calls of the counter-part of the present applicant, who had remained present before this Court on 2/5/2022 when the learned Coordinate Bench had passed the order. It also appears that the applicant had filed an undertaking whereby she had submitted that she would be ready and willing to deposit the amount as directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, but then as it appears, neither of the amounts as observed herein above has been deposited. It also appears that the communication dtd. 14/6/2022 addressed to the Registrar General has also been received, but in view of the fact that the applicant is already represented by the learned Advocate, this Court refuses to take cognizance of the said letter.