Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ISTKHAR versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Istkhar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7482 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20632 (6 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble V.D. Chaturvedi, J.

Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance today on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record. When the case is listed next, his name shall also be shown in the cause list as counsel for the complainant.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have perused the impugned judgment also.

Admit.

Office is directed to summon the trial court record within a period of eight weeks.

It is contended that there is no eyewitness account. The appellant is not named in the FIR.  The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution examined only one witness Mohd. Shahid, who claimed to have seen the appellant and others, taking away minor son (Mohd. Aamir) of the complainant on 19.3.2003. He however gave this intimation to the complainant on 26.3.2003 and there is no satisfactory explanation on record for this delay in giving intimation to the father of the boy. The appellants was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have submitted that the complainant and the appellant are related to each other. The witness saw the boy (deceased) in the company of the appellant and others and as such, he did not consider it proper to inform the complainant earlier.

Considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments advanced before us, we are of the opinion that the appellant deserves bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellant-Istkhar be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing bonds of two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Saharanpur in S.T. No. 264of 2003 State Vs. Shamsher @ Shamshir and another.

The appellant is allowed one month time from today to deposit the entire amount of fine in the court below.

6.12.2006

OP/7482/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.