Payal Pukhraj Bhargav vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 1821 Guj

        R/CR.MA/2289/2021                                    ORDER




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2289 of 2021

==========================================================
                            PAYAL PUKHRAJ BHARGAV
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
SHRIRAM K BHARGAW(9436) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN

                               Date : 08/02/2021

                                ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.

It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that no FIR has been filed against the present applicant and the Sessions Court has passed the order in favour of the applicant that in the event of arrest, the I.O. shall give notice or intimation to the applicant prior to the arrest but, no duration of notice of period of arrest has been mentioned by the Sessions Court and there is an ambiguity in the order of the Sessions Court.

Upon hearing the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant, it appears that the Sessions Court has given a right protection to the applicant in view of the judgment of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) CRI. LJ 3707, however, the duration as to what should be the period of notice in the case of arrest of the applicant by the I.O. is not mentioned, and therefore the applicant shall move before the

R/CR.MA/2289/2021 ORDER

Sessions Court to get the clarification of this aspect by filing appropriate application and the Sessions Court shall decide it in accordance with law.

With the above observation and direction, this application stands disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.

(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J) URIL RANA