Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(Raj) 1093

M.B.SHAH, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Ujwal Kumar Jha, Aslam Ahmed, Ranjan Kumar Jha, Nakul Dewan, Ejaz Maqbool, Advocates, for Petitioners S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate, for Respondent

Honble SHAH, J.–In these two petitions filed by the police inspectors serving the Gujarat State, it has been contended that prosecuting agency has no right to ask for remand of petitioner (accused) for the purpose of collecting, evidence and the application moved for remand of the petitioners (accused) was unjustified because anticipatory bail was granted to. them.

(2). It is the prosecution version, as per the FIR lodged on 7.2.2002 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police D Division, Surat that petitioners and other Police personnel are involved in offences punishable under Secs. 429, 420, 465, 468,.477-A and 1 14 IPC. It is alleged that when they were working at various Police Stations, they have committed offences during the period from 20.2.1992 to 23.11.2001 by replacement of mudammal articles including golden ornaments by other spurious articles, misappropriation of the amount which was kept at the Police Station, unauthorised auction of the property which was seized and kept in the Police custody pending trial and tampering with the records of Police Station. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 20.6.2002 rejected the application against the order passed by the tria

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. There are no clear statements or keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "distinguished," or "criticized" that suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of any case. Therefore, based on the information available, no cases are identified as bad law.

Followed / Cited Favorably:

Treatment as Guiding Principles:

Multiple entries (e.g., Parasuraman Vs State, Rep. By Its The Inspector Of Police - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1206, Jeevan Vs State Rep By Its The Inspector Of Police - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1205, Parasuraman vs State - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3907, Jeevan vs State Rep. by its the Inspector of Police - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3900, AJIN S vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44999, A.Balakrishnan vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63086, JINU JOSE @ DAIMON vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46582) show courts referencing Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai for procedural guidelines, judicial discretion, and interim custody principles. This indicates the case's continued authority and positive treatment as a guiding precedent.

Uncertain or Ambiguous Treatment:

Some entries (e.g., Jawahar Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2466, Amir Hussain Wani VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1406, Shivpratap VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1932, Rakesh Kumar Bharti VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 2013) mention the case in context but do not specify whether the treatment is positive or negative. They merely cite the case as part of the legal discussion without indicating if it has been overruled or criticized.

The case Jawahar Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2466 references "State of Bihar (supra) and Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai" but does not clarify the treatment, making it uncertain whether the case is still considered good law.

Entries like Muthoot Money Limited vs State of Karnataka - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 121 and Vijay Ananth vs The State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68274 cite the case in relation to legal principles but without explicit indication of treatment status.

Jawahar Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2466: The treatment is unclear; it references the case but does not specify whether it is still considered good law or has been overruled.

Amir Hussain Wani VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1406: The context suggests reliance, but treatment status (followed or overruled) is not explicit.

Shivpratap VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1932 and Rakesh Kumar Bharti VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 2013: Mention reliance on the case, but no explicit indication of whether the case has been overruled or questioned.

Muthoot Money Limited vs State of Karnataka - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 121, Vijay Ananth vs The State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68274, and similar references: They cite the case in support of principles but do not clarify treatment status.

Overall, these cases are included in the uncertain category due to lack of explicit treatment indicators.

2002 Supreme(Raj) 1093

M.B.SHAH, D.M.DHARMADHIKARISunderbhai Ambalal Desai – AppellantVersusState of Gujarat – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

M.B.SHAH, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent