CHANDAN DIXIT versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Chandan Dixit v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 2762 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3502 (15 February 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 Ravindra Singh , J.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., whereas co-accused Dr. Deepak Kumar Mandal was named in the F.I.R. According to F.I.R. version  Dr. Deepak Kumar Mandal and two unknown persons have taken the prosecutrix Km. Poonam. The age of the prosecutrix has not been disclosed. Even in the F.I.R. the name of the vehicle has not been mentioned. The statement of the first informant was recorded. The statement of the other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. in which they did not disclose the name of the applicant and the vehicle. Simply it was disclosed  that the prosecutrix was taken away by accused persons in a car on which it was written  Applied For. It is contended that due to  doubt and suspicion the car of the applicant, which is Tata Indica, has been apprehended by the police and the applicant has been made accused. The recovered car has not been put for identification and the same has been released in favour of the applicant because he is a registered owner of the car. It is further contended that there is no evidence to show the involvement of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence and it has come in the statement of first informant that Dr. Deepak Kumar Mandal  was having good relation with the first informant who has taken away his daughter.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without entering into the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Let the applicant Chandan Dixit  involved in Case Crime No. 32 of 2006, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Dt: 15.2.2006

Rcv/2762-06

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

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.