Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Kumar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 2419 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6915 (29 March 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

Court No. 54

CRIMINALMISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2419 OF 2006.

Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nitin Gupta Advoate for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is bail application on behalf of the accused Vinod Kumar. Three accused mentioned in the first information report are alleged to have taken away the deceased from his house and subsequently hurled brickbats. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The submission on behalf of the applicant is that all the injuries are fire arm injuries. No injury of brickbats has been received by the deceased and, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.

The argument on behalf of the applicant has been emphatically disputed by Sri Nitin Gupta, who has filed counter and supplementary counter affidavits bringing to the notice of this Court that it was the applicant, who called the deceased from his house and subsequently he was the person who had got the licensed fire arm belonging to the deceased recovered on his pointing out. Recovery memo has also been annexed with the counter affidavit. Since the occurrence is of broad day light and specific assertion has been made against the present applicant Vinod Kumar, who had taken away the deceased on his insistence and the witnesses had seen him hurled brickbats, no case for bail is made out. The bail application is accordingly rejected at this stage.

However, the trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him, without granting any undue adjournment to either parties unless and until compelling circumstances arise to do so and that too after recording reasons in writing.

Dt/-29.3.2006.

Rmk.


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.