CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78 To 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81 NOMINAL INDEX Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. State of Gujarat thru The Addl. Chief Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78 Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni (Muslim) Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79 State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai Nevsingbhai Rathva 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited...
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78 To 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
NOMINAL INDEX
Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. State of Gujarat thru The Addl. Chief Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni (Muslim) Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai Nevsingbhai Rathva 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Ashaben Vikrambhai Chauhan 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case Title: Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. State of Gujarat thru The Addl. Chief Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State authorities to consider regularizing the services of Petitioner-employees, working on contractual basis on interceptor boats for coastal security in the State's Home Department since over 11 years.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav noted that the Petitioners had been recruited, albeit, on a contractual basis, after a public advertisement and a duly constituted selection committee consisting of the Additional Secretary, Law & Order, Director of Sainik Welfare Board, a representative each of the police, navy and coats guard respectively and a Jilla Sainik Kalyan Officer.
Case Title: Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni (Muslim) Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a Rohingya woman alleged to have committed offences under Sections 465, 467, 471, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 6 of the Passport Act and Sections 13, 14A(a) and 14A(b) of Foreigners Act.
The Applicant had submitted that considering the nature of allegations and the role of the Applicant, it was suitable to be released on bail. Per contra, the Respondent-Authority vehemently contended that the nature of the offence was grave and bail should not be granted.
3. Intention Or Knowledge Essential To Attract Section 307 IPC: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai Nevsingbhai Rathva
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
"What is material to attract offense under section 307 of the IPC is the intention or knowledge with which all the acts are done irrespective of its results", the Gujarat High Court has held recently.
Justice Sandeep Bhatt made this observation in connection with a criminal appeal challenging the order of acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 147 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149/143 (Unlawful assembly), 307 (Attempt to murder), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506(2) (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashaben Vikrambhai Chauhan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
The Gujarat High Court has held that when proceedings against a driver are instituted for negligence causing a motor accident, then such driver's statements cannot form part of the charge sheet filed against him.
"The copy of charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle – Truck and the fact that he is prosecuted in the Court of law, if at all, chargesheet is filed against the driver, his own statement recorded in the said criminal case would never form a part of charge-sheet as it cannot be used against him during the course of trial", Justice Umesh Trivedi opined.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court
Case title - Bharatbhai Thobhanbhai Koyani v Jayendrasinh Udesinh Gohil
The Gujarat High Court took a serious note of a plea moved by an advocate who sought to initiate contempt of court proceedings against a police officer for violation of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar, by alleging that the officer/alleged contemnor detained him on account of a previous grudge.
Having heard the matter, the Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri, termed it as a 'serious' issue, and orally asked the respondent as to why this was done and why did he implicate the lawyer in the case.
Case Title: Nikunj Jayantilal Mevada vs The State of Gujarat and Ors
The Gujarat High Court has issued notice to the Respondent authorities in a PIL seeking protection of the rights of pregnant women, unborn infants and the right of childbirth for pregnant women.
The Petitioner who came to know of the case of a poor pregnant woman who was denied treatment on the ground that she could not deliver the payment of INR 42,000 before treatment, has now filed this petition. The Petitioner seeks:
1. The doctors and the hospital and other necessary institutions be duty bound to provide medical aid to any pregnant woman in extreme labour pain or in a medical emergency.
2. Further, Respondent authorities must formulate schemes and policies for protecting human rights of pregnant women and rights during childbirth per Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3. Prompt penal and/or compensatory reaction be initiated against wrong doers for violation of the rights of pregnant women through denial of medical aid or emergency care etc.
Case Title: Purnesh Ishvarbhai Modi Versus State Of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court is set to examine whether a Magistrate can reject an application filed by the complainant seeking explanation of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, upon the evidence produced against him.
The provision stipulates power of the Court to examine the accused and enable him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
In the instant case, the accused was booked for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The Petitioner (complainant) had produced electronic evidence and subsequently, submitted an application before the trial court for the purpose of enabling the accused person to explain the contents of the CD and/or Pen Drive and other electronic records relating to the accused's speech per Section 313 of CrPC. However, this application was rejected.