Shah Nirav @ Ravi Maheshbhai vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5219 Guj

         R/SCR.A/4171/2021                                 ORDER



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4171 of 2021
=============================================
                      SHAH NIRAV @ RAVI MAHESHBHAI
                                  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 70 days of his late surrender.

3.0. The record indicates that the petitioner is convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Patan for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 303, 304, 305, 307 and 311 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.05.2019. It also appears from the record that against the conviction order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1808 of 2019 was preferred by

R/SCR.A/4171/2021 ORDER

the applicant before this Court and same is pending. The record indicates that the petitioner was enlarged on furlough leave by the competent authority. 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 70 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 70 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 70 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