LAWS(GJH)-2007-2-254

SANDEEP KESHAVLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On February 23, 2007
Sandeep Keshavlal Patel Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE present for the petitioners, even as the matter was called out twice during the course of the day.

(2.) THE petitioners have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to pray for setting aside the order dated 29.05.1998 of learned J.M.F.C., Anand in Criminal Case No.3914 of 1997 whereby the accused persons No.1 to 5, including the petitioners, were required to furnish personal bond of Rs.3 lacs and a surety of the like amount with the direction inter alia to deposit the passports in the Court. Thus, subject to the conditions, all the accused persons, except accused person No.2, were granted bail by that order which was challenged in revision by the petitioners in Criminal Revision Appeal No.34 of 1998 and the order made therein is also challenged in the present petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that, even as the amount of personal bond and surety to be furnished was reduced to Rs.50,000/ -, the petitioners were again directed to deposit their passports and the trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings without delay within six months.

(3.) IT was fairly conceded by learned counsel Mr.A.R. Gupta, appearing for the respondent, original complainant, that after the aforesaid order dated 16.07.1999 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in revision, a quashing petition was filed by the petitioners in this Court and it was only recently disposed by this Court. Therefore, the proceedings of the trial court could not be concluded till now and the aforesaid impugned direction to deposit the passports had remained stayed during the pendency of the present proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that expeditious conclusion of the proceedings in the trial court and presence of the accused persons as and when their presence was required in the Court were more important and, if that were ensured, he may not insist upon surrender of the passports by the petitioners.