High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Hari Kewal & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 240 of 2006  RD-AH 8786 (2 May 2006)
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed the prayer for bail of Hari Kewal. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the role, which has been assigned to Hari Kewal is identical to that of Ghurahu, the co-accused. He has further contended that only allegation against the appellant Hari Kewal is that he along with Ghurahu has given a Pudia of Poison to Sursatiya and who administered it to her husband as a result of which he died.
We have perused the record of the case. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the role assigned to Hari Kewal is identical to Ghurahu, is not correct statement of fact. In the F.I.R. it is categorically mentioned that Hari Kewal had given a Pudia of poison to Sursatiya. Consequently, the role of present appellant Hari Kewal is not identical to that of Ghurahu, the other co-accused. The appellant cannot claim parity to Ghurahu. Further, it has come in the evidence that appellant Hari Kewal was having illicit relationship with Sursatiya and as a result of which she gave poison to her husband.
We find no ground to enlarge the appellant no. 1 Hari Kewal on bail. Consequently, the prayer for bail is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.