Rajesh Shamalbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5221 Guj

        R/SCR.A/3210/2021                                      ORDER



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3210 of 2021
=============================================
                            RAJESH SHAMALBHAI PATEL
                                      Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NIKHILESH J SHAH(3007) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) 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. Nikhilesh J Shah, 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 46 days of his late surrender.

3.0. The record indicates that the petitioner is convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur in Sessions Case No.10 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.2018. It also appears from the record that against the conviction order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2018 was

R/SCR.A/3210/2021 ORDER

preferred by the applicant before this Court and same is pending for adjudication. The record indicates that the petitioner was enlarged on furlough leave for a period of 14 days. Mr. Shah, 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 46 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 46 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 46 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