MANUBHAI BHIKABHAI VALAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant - original complainant has filed this Application under Section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "cr. P. C. ")inter-alia praying to quash and set aside the order dated 22. 01. 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3204 of 2007 and cancel the bail of respondent No. 2 - original accused in M. Case No. 17 of 2007 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, on the ground that the respondent No. 2 - accused has breached the conditions which were imposed in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting the bail to the respondent No. 2.

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. C. Rupera, learned Advocate for the applicant, mr. S. P. Hasurkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 - State and Mr. P. R. Nanavati learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 - original accused.

(3.) MR. Rupera has contended that while granting the bail to the respondent No. 2 the learned Judge has imposed certain conditions, viz. (i) that he shall not leave the limits of India till the disposal of the present case; and (ii) that he shall deposit passport before the IO within three days of this order. Mr. Rupera has contended that the respondent no. 2 has surrendered his passport before the IO bearing No. F120155 which has expired in 2002 and he has not surrendered the fresh passport no. E2117282 which was issued on 12. 6. 2002 and thereby the respondent no. 2 has committed the breach of conditions imposed by the learned Judge while granting bail to him. Mr. Rupera has also contended that the respondent No. 2 had visited Dubai (out of India) from 17. 8. 2008 to 23. 8. 2008 without the prior permission of the Court concerned and thereby the respondent No. 2 has breached the condition of the order passed by the learned Judge "that he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court". He has also contended that the applicant has informed to the respondent No. 3 about the breach of conditions of bail order committed by the respondent No. 2 - accused and also made a request in writing that immediate action be taken against the respondent no. 2, but the Investigating Officer has not taken any action. He has also contended that he obtained information under the provisions of Right to Information Act and from that information he came to know that the respondent No. 2 has not surrendered his original passport and also not obtained any prior permission to go abroad. He, therefore, contended that the respondent No. 2 has disobeyed the order passed by the learned judge.