YASINBHAI MOHAMMEDBHAI VORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:

(2.) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner has neither remained present nor any mention is made, even in the second round of the matter. As a result of this, since the State authority has already submitted affidavit-in-reply, the Court is constrained to take up the matter for hearing.

(3.) From the pleadings, it appears that in Para.2.1, an impression is sought to be created by the petitioner that he is involved in this offence only, for which he is apprehending arrest and the entire project in the present proceedings is concentrated on the solitary FIR being IIICR No.160 of 2018. Further, a categorical statement on oath is made in Para.5 of the petition that on the basis of solitary FIR only, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest. This averment made on oath is examined by the Court with the assistance of learned AGP, who filed an affidavit-in-reply, wherein a categorical assertion has been made that in the present matter, the petitioner is consistently carrying out this illegal activity and has been able to be prevented by even taking harsh action in past, as well. The entire impression which has been given on oath is quite different from the ground reality. As a result of this, learned AGP has vehemently submitted that this is nothing but a clear false representation on oath and, therefore, the learned AGP has requested the Court to dismiss the petition on this count alone.