Anand Naginbhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5212 Guj

         R/SCR.A/4249/2021                                      ORDER



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4249 of 2021
=============================================
                             ANAND NAGINBHAI VAGHELA
                                      Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HEMANT B RAVAL(3491) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
=============================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
                    Date : 22/04/2021
                       ORAL ORDER

1.0. Heard Mr. Hemant Raval, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent state through Video Conference. Rule. Ms. Mehta, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2.0. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for regularization of 34 days of his late surrender.

3.0. The record indicates that the petitioner is convicted by learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.273 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2011. It also appears from the record that against the conviction order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2012 was

R/SCR.A/4249/2021 ORDER

preferred by the applicant before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2016. The record indicates that the petitioner was enlarged on parole leave for a period of 45 days. Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken to this Court to the material on record and has contended that because of circumstances beyond the control, the petitioner could not and did not surrender, which may be considered and late surrender of 34 days be condoned as prayed for.

4.0. Per contra, Ms. Mehta, learned APP for the respondent State has opposed this petition and has submitted that late surrender of 34 days of petitioner may not be condoned.

4.1. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and material on record as well as jail remarks which is provided by the learned APP and in facts of this case, late surrender of 34 days deserves to be regularized as prayed for and is hereby regularized. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(R.M.CHHAYA, J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD