Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Babu v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 669 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8482 (27 April 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

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.669 OF 2005

Vinod Kumar Pal and another .......................Applicants.

                   Versus

State of U.P........................................Opposite Party.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Submission on behalf of the applicants is that they are alleged to have caused injuries by licensed Double Barrel Gun, whereas post mortem report shows that there are three firearm injuries and there is no explanation regarding injury no.3, which is lacerated wound on the left arm and there is fracture of the bone. On the basis of aforesaid submission, it is argued that it cannot be ascertained, who caused these three injuries, out of the five accused named in the First Information Report.  Besides, no one has seen occurrence as there is no explanation of injury no.3.  Despite having granted time to the learned A.G.A., No counter affidavit has been filed till date. Learned A.G.A. has produced fax message sent by Sri A.K. Verma, Additional Government Advocate on 17.4.2006 to the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot. In spite of the aforesaid radiogram and intimation about the date fixed i.e. 27.4.2006, Investigating Officer/Station House Officer has not turned up to file counter affidavit.

I have considered arguments of the counsel for the respective parties. The occurrence has taken place in the morning at 8:00 a.m. in the broad day light and five accused have been attributed role of causing firearm injuries.  Details as to who caused fatal injuries to the deceased is to be seen and examined during the trial. It is not a fit case for bail.  The bail application is, accordingly, rejected at this stage.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is in jail since one and half year.  

However, learned Sessions Judge is directed to expedite and complete the trial in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The court shall not grant any adjournment to the either parties and make efforts to complete the trial within prescribed period.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Sessions Judge within a period of ten days from today.

Dt. 27.4.2006

rkg


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.