State Of Gujarat vs Maheshbhai Rasiklal Mehta
2023 Latest Caselaw 4519 Guj

   R/CR.MA/18460/2018                          ORDER DATED: 15/06/2023




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18460 of 2018
==================================================
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                              Versus
               MAHESHBHAI RASIKLAL MEHTA & 2 other(s)
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                          Date : 15/06/2023
                           ORAL ORDER

The present application is filed under Section 439(2) of the

Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail.

The applicant-State has preferred this application and

thereby challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court i.e. District and Sessions Judge,

Sabarkanta @ Himmatnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.

771 of 2018 and 772 of 2018 whereby the learned trial court has

granted bail to the accused concerned by order dated

07.08.2018. Thereafter, there was no further progress and there

was no allegation with regard to breach of condition or non-

compliance of the order passed by the trial Court.

Today, learned advocate Mr. Jighar Gadhavi appearing on

R/CR.MA/18460/2018 ORDER DATED: 15/06/2023

behalf of respondent No.1 has submitted that the trial has

already been concluded and all accused were acquitted by the

learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 23.08.2022.

Today, learned advocate for the applicant has produced a copy

of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court on

record.

Though the respondent No.2 was unserved shown as

expired and the notice was earlier issued qua advocate for

accused no.1 but in view of the fact that the trial has already

been concluded, no order is required to be passed.

In that view of the matter, the present application does not

survive as having become infructuous.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) VISHAL MISHRA