LATIF Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present successive bail application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.11191028201019 of 2020 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Ss. 307 , 332 , 188 of the IPC and u/s. 5,8,6(B), 10 of the Animal Preservation Act (Amended) 2017 as well as u/s. 11(1)e, 11(1) (f), 11(1)(h) of the Cruelty to Animal Act .

(2.) Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. That, the applicant is the driver and he is not the owner of the meat which was seized by the police in the commission of offence. That, applicant is not the owner of the vehicle which was seized by the police. That, earlier bail application was withdrawn by the applicant on 1/9/2020 and thereafter, trial has not commenced and not a single witness has been examined and case is still not committed and therefore, there is a delay in commencing the trial. That, other co-accused was released on regular bail by the Sessions Court therefore, on the ground of parity, applicant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. That, learned Sessions Judge has wrongly observed that there are 10 offenses against the applicant which is not true and correct and Investigating Officer has filed the affidavit while opposing the bail application before the Court below and looking to the said affidavit, it shows that 3 offences are shown against the applicant in which one offence was under the Prohibition Act .