Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Aher Somatbhai Ramabhai (Since ... on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 411 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
AHER SOMATBHAI RAMABHAI (SINCE DECEASED, ABATED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4,5
MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4,5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval (hereinafter referred
to as "the learned Trial Court") in Atro Sessions Case No.
4/2006 on 22.12.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court
has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 325 and 506(2) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity
Act" for short).
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.
1 has expired and the appeal qua the respondent no. 1 is
disposed of as infructuous.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" in the rank and file as they stood in the original
case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1 On 30.10.1999 at around 00.30 hours, the accused
formed an unlawful assembly and armed themselves with
weapons like sticks and iron pipes and came to the field of
the complainant and assaulted the complainant and other
witnesses. The complainant sustained fractures on her
hands and the other witnesses too sustained injuries and
the complainant - Maniben Sida Rama Harijan Vankar filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
a complaint at Prabhaspatan Police Station under Sections
143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be
registered at Prabhaspatan Police Station I - C.R. No.
0173/1999.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Veraval and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Veraval as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atro
Sessions Case No. 4/2006 on 22.12.2010.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 1 was framed against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 wherein, the accused denied the
contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced
24 documentary evidences on record in support of their
case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was recorded and after the arguments of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for
the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the
impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the
accused from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the
learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and
during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents
and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the
reasons stated while acquitting the respondents are
improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Divyang Joshi for learned
advocate Mr. Chintant Popat for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and
have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
the case and submitted that the complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Divyang Joshi for learned
advocate Mr. Chintant Popat for the respondent nos. 2 to 5
has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated
the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order
and no interference is required hence, the appeal may be
rejected.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of
interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa
& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC
415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this
Court stated:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the
Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals,
the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be
interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of
the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is
reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of
the trial court merely because a different view is possible.
The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the
accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if
it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing
with the decision of the trial court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of appellate
Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it
may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of
fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and
compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds',
'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions',
'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the
reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to
review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well
crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally
culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned
Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the
learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court
was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate
Court to interfere in the same.
8. To bring home the charge against the accused, the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Daiben wife of Ramabhai
at Exh. 12 and she is the sister-in-law of the complainant
Maniben Sida Rama. The witness has supported the case of
the prosecution and has produced her caste certificate at
Exh. 16. The witness has stated that after the incident,
they were taken to the Government Hospital at
Prabhaspatan and thereafter to the hospital at Veraval. The
witness has identified the sticks before the learned Trial
Court. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that
there is a dispute regarding the land with the accused and
the accused and his family are living at Inaj village which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
at a distance of about 2.5 to 3 kms and there is only a
small road to approach the place of incident. There are no
lights at the place of incident and after the incident, they
had gone to the field of Masribhai and the police had
arrived at about around 01.00 pm. The police inquired from
her, Maniben, Bhupatbhai and Chandubhai and once again
in the morning two policemen came took them to the
hospital. The sticks that she has identified is normally
carried by farmers in the area.
8.1 PW2 - Chandubhai Devabhai examined at Exh. 18 is
also an injured victim and has supported the case of the
prosecution and during the cross-examination, he has
admitted that he resides at Sangadhra village and the place
of incident is a public road without lights and hence, one
cannot identify a person standing on the road. The witness
did not have an occasion to meet the accused at any time
prior to the incident and did not know them prior to the
incident. There are a number of fields surrounding the
place of incident and before the Medical Officer, he has not
named any of the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
8.2 PW3 - Dr. Rameshkumar Arjanbhai Muchhadiya
examined at Exh. 20 is the Medical Officer who was on duty
on 30.10.1999 at General Hospital, Junagadh. The witness
has stated that at around 09.15 pm, Maliben Sidabhai
resident of village Chamoda was brought for treatment with
a refer chit of General Hospital, Veraval. In the history, she
has stated that she was assaulted with sticks and pipes by
Somat Rama and Puna Somat and on examination, she had
an abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm on right forearm, tenderness on
right forearm, bruise 1 cm x 4 cm on left lateral thigh/ red
to brown color and a bruise 7 cm x 3 cm on left gluteal
region which was oblique and brown. As per the history,
there was a fracture in the right radius. The patient was
admitted as an indoor patient in the female ward on
30.10.1999 and was discharged on 01.11.1999. As per the
opinion of the Medical Officer, the injuries were likely to be
caused by hard and blunt substance and would take about
six to eight weeks to heal if no complications arise. During
the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had
only given primary treatment to the patient and a fracture
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
injury could be caused by fall or dash against the wall.
Besides the fracture, the other injuries were simple and an
abrasion could be sustained if a person dashes with some
hard substance.
8.3 PW4 - Dr. Rameshgiri Mohangiri Meghnath examined
at Exh. 25 is a Medical Officer at Prabhatpatan Government
Hospital and he has stated that on 30.10.1999 at around
12.30 am, Maliben Sidabhai Ramabhai Jadav had come for
treatment with Police Constable - Govindbhai Virabhai,
Buckle No. 1738. The patient had given a history of assault
by Samatbhai by delivery on 30.10.1999 at about 12.30 am.
On examination, there was a swelling on the dorsum of right
hand above the 3 cm x 3 cm and 1 cm abrasion on the right
hand with tenderness, a transverse contusion on lateral
side of left thigh 4 cm x 2 cm, transverse contusion on
lateral side of left thigh 2 cm x 2 cm and tenderness on the
right shoulder. The patient was given primary treatment
and referred to the orthopedic surgeon and the witness has
produced to Medical Certificate at Exh. 26. On the same
day, Daiben Dhanabhai Devshi was also brought for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
treatment at about 6.00 pm and she had given a history of
alleged assault by Samatbhai by a delivery on 30.10.1999 at
12.30 am. On examination, the patient had tenderness on
the right shoulder and contusion on the posterior side of
right thigh 2 cm x 2 cm and tenderness on the left shoulder.
The witness has produced the Medical Certificate of Daiben
Dhanabhai Devshi at Exh. 27. At the same time, Chandulal
Devabhai Patar was brought for treatment and in the
history, he had stated that he was assaulted with a Kadiyari
Stick on 30.10.1999 at 12.30 am. On examination, the
patient had a transverse contusion 7 inch x 1.5 inch,
swelling 3 cm x 3 cm underneath tenderness, contusion
vertical 6 inch x 1.5 inch tenderness, tenderness on the left
thigh one leg and an abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the left leg.
The witness was produced the Medical Certificate of
Chandulal Devabhai Patar at Exh. 28. During the cross
examination, the witness has stated that Maliben and
Daiben had stated that they were assaulted by a delivery
and all the injuries were simple in nature. The injuries that
were sustained by Maliben and Daiben could be sustained
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
by a fall on a hard and blunt surface and if a fracture was
on the hand, it could be sustained due to a fall or a dash
against something.
8.4 PW5 - Bhanubhai Sidibhai examined at Exh. 30 is the
son of the complainant and he too has supported the case of
the prosecution. The witness has refused to identify the
weapon and has stated that at the time of the incident, it
was dark and he could not identify the weapon. During the
cross examination, by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has admitted that the land is in possession of
the accused and there is a case filed against them. That
prior to this, they had filed a case under the Atrocity Act
against some other person and at the time of the incident, it
was dark and if there is shouting, the persons in the nearby
field took come first but as they had a dispute with the
accused regarding the land, they presumed that it was the
accused who had attacked them and at the time of the
incident, he was engaged in saving himself and he cannot
say who had assaulted him. To save himself, he ran away
from the place and besides the five accused, there were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
about 25 to 30 people who had come to assault him and
they all were shouting.
8.5 PW6 - Manjibhai Mavjibhai Pargi is the PSO who has
registered the complaint of the complainant and has
completed the necessary procedures and has produced the
depute order at Exh. 36, special report at Exh. 37, wireless
message sent to Dy.S.P, Junagadh at Exh. 38 and the
extract of the station diary at Exh. 39.
8.6 PW7 - Bhupatbhai Tabhabhai Vala examined at Exh.
54 is an eye witness as per the case of the prosecution but
the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution
and has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the
learned APP and nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record.
8.7 PW8 - Rajkumar Pandian examined at Exh. 56 is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure
undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-
examination by the learned APP, the witness has stated that
during investigation it was found that Sidabhai was not well
but he did not investigate about illness of Sidabhai. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
cause of the quarrel was the land and at the time of the
incident, the possession of the land was with the accused.
There are a number of persons with fields surrounding the
place of incident and the statements of those persons were
recorded and if there was any shout, the persons nearby
would have heard that. The complainant has earlier filed
two similar cases against the accused and the witness does
not know as to whether by an order of his court, the
possession of the land has been handed over to the accused.
8.8 PW9 - Dilabhai Mulabhai examined at Exh. 63 is the
panch witness of the panchanama of the place of offence
which is produced at the Exh. 64 and the witness has
supported the case of the prosecution.
8.9 PW10 - Jayeshgiri Jasmatgiri examined at Exh. 65 is
the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of the
complainant and the injured witnesses which is produced at
Exh. 66 and the witness has supported the case of the
prosecution.
8.10 PW11 - Ismailbhai Rahimbhai Patni examined at Exh.
67 and PW12 - Mohammadbhai Rehmanbhai examined at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
Exh. 69 are panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place
of offence which is produced at the Exh. 68. Both the
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution
and have been declared hostile.
8.11 PW13 - Dr. Bhimjibhai Karshanbhai Kulbariya
examined at Exh. 70 is the Medical Officer who was on duty
at the Nagarpalika General Hospital in Veraval on
30.10.1999. The witness has stated that around 11.25 am,
Maliben Sidibhai was brought for treatment and in the
history, she had stated that somebody had assaulted her
with a pipe and stick. The patient was primarily examined
and treated by Medical Officer, CHC, Prabhaspatan and had
come to Municipal General Hospital, Veraval for further
investigation and treatment. The patient was referred to the
Orthopedic Surgeon at Civil Hospital, Junagadh and the
witness has produced the M.L.C. Certificate of Maniben
Sidibhai at Exh. 71. On the same day, Chandubhai
Devabhai was also brought with a refer chit from
Prabhaspatan, CHC Hospital with history of assault by
somebody with sticks and fists. The patient had taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
primary treatment at CHC, Prabhaspatan and he came for
further investigation and treatment. On examination, there
were two contusions with ecchymosis on the left scapular
region 5 cm x 1 cm and 4 cm x 1 cm with black color and
tenderness. The patient was unable to raise up his left arm.
There was a swelling on the left ankle 3 cm x 3 cm with
tenderness medially, a contusion with ecchymosis on the
back of the right hand 4 cm x 3 cm black color with
tenderness and an abrasion on the back of the left thigh 2
cm x 2 cm with dryclotted blood and tenderness. After the
x-ray, it was found that the patient has sustained a fracture
at the medial border of the left scapula. The patient went to
Civil Hospital, Junagadh on 01.11.1999. The witness has
produced the MLC Certificate of the Chandubhai Devabhai
of the Municipal General Hospital at Exh. 72. At the same
time, Bhanabhai Sidibhai was brought for treatment after
taking primary treatment from CHC, Prabhaspatan and in
the history, he has stated that he was assaulted by
somebody with sticks and stones. He had taken primary
treatment at CHC, Prabhaspatan and he had a complaint of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
pain in the left knee, left foot, right cheek and throat. He
was admitted in the hospital on 30.10.1999 at 11.00 am
and was discharged on 02.11.1999 at 9.30 am. At the same
time, Daiben Danabhai was also brought for treatment after
being treated by the Medical Officer at CHC, Prabhaspatan
and in the history, she has stated that she was assaulted
with sticks and stones. She had come for x-ray investigation
and the right upper arm x-ray did not show any
abnormality. The witnesses produced the MLC Certificate of
Daiben Danabhai at Exh. 74. In the cross examination by
the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated
that as the patients were earlier primarily treated at CHC,
Prabhaspatan, the marks of treatment were found and
Bhanabhai Sidibhai had only complaints of pain but the
complaints could be false.
8.12 PW14 - Najirbhai Pirbhai examined at Exh. 75 is
panch witness of the arrest panchnama produced at Exh.
8.13 PW16 - Manojbhai Mangajibhai Balat examined at
Exh. 92 has recorded the complaint of the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
which is produced at Exh. 96. During the cross
examination, the witness has stated that the complainant
came to him to file the complaint, she was old and
uneducated and her thumb impression on the complaint
produced at Exh. 96 has not been identified by anyone.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the incident as per the complaint produced at
Exh. 96 has occurred on 30.10.1999 of around 00.30 hours
and the FIR has been registered on the same day at 08.00
am. The injured have been first taken to CHC,
Prabhaspatan and thereafter, they were taken to
Nagarpalika General Hospital at Veraval and the
complainant and one injured person were referred to
General Hospital, Junagadh. In the entire evidence, it has
emerged that at the first instance, when the complainant
and the injured were taken to CHC, Prabhaspatan, the
complainant has named the accused no. 1 but before the
Medical Officer at Nagarpalika General Hospital, Veraval all
the injured have not named any person and have merely
stated that somebody has injured them with sticks and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
stones. At the General Hospital, Junagadh, two of the
accused have been named and if the entire evidence is
believed, there are major contradictions in the deposition of
the injured and eyewitness. The evidence that has emerged
is that at the time of the incident, the accused were in
possession of the field where the incident has occurred and
as per the say of the witnesses, they were in the field but
there is no iota of evidence that they were the owners or
occupiers of the field. Moreover, it has also emerged that at
the time of the incident, it was dark and there were no
lights surrounding the place and it was difficult to identify
anyone. PW5 - Bhanubhai Sidibhai who is an eyewitness to
the incident, has stated that besides the accused, there
were 25 to 30 persons and they all were shouting and in
the evidence it is also come on record that surrounding the
place of incident, there were other persons who were
present in the fields and if any shouting had taken place,
they would be the first to come there. It appears that none
of the independent witnesses have been examined before
the learned Trial Court and only the interested witnesses
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
have been examined by the prosecution. Moreover, in the
evidence, it has also emerged that one Bhayabhai had
informed the police about the incident but the said
Bhayabhai has not examined as a witness before the
learned Trial Court. The entire evidence has been
appreciated in detail by the learned Trial Court.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and
there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned
Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court
is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court
was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the
charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no
illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned
Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with
the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/411/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and
resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Veraval in Atro Sessions Case No. 4/2006 on 22.12.2010,
is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
