Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANJIV & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sanjiv & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 22318 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 8816 (2 May 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. II BAIL APPLICATION NO.22318 OF 2005

Sanjiv and another.....................................Applicants.

                   Versus

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

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is second bail application on behalf of the applicants. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 1.8.2005 on account of the reason that the occurrence is of broad day light and the eye witnesses have clearly given out names of the accused. Second bail application has been moved along with the supplementary affidavit. A copy of the statement of wife of the deceased Smt. Suresh P.W.1 is annexed as annexure no. S.A.1.  She was examined on 24.2.2006 in session trial no. 295 of 2005.  According to the First Information Report, wife had accompanied the deceased (husband) to the market on the date and time of occurrence, when the applicants along with other accused alleged to have fired on the deceased. Smt. Suresh wife of late Amar Pal has stated on oath that two unknown persons came on motorbike and killed him. Soharan Pal, Sohan Veer s/o Ilab Singh were not present and had not accompanied her to the market.  The wife has not supported prosecution case and has also specifically denied presence of Soharan Pal  and Sohan Veer.  Soharan Pal has been examined as P.W. 2. A copy of his statement is annexed as annexure no. S.A.2.  

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his cross examination to substantiate his argument that Soharan Pal, who has been shown as an eye witness had long standing enmity with the deceased and his family members.  This fact has come out in his cross examination that Soharan Pal and Sohan Veer were either accused or witnesses in a number of litigations with the family of the deceased. Besides the facts, wife of the deceased has completely exonerated the present applicants to have participated in the incident and also stated that the accused including the applicants present in the court, were not involved in committing the crime.  In view of this new development, the applicants are admitted to bail.

Observation and conclusion given above shall not be taken as an opinion on merit of the case. The bail application is allowed.

Let applicants Sanjiv, Nitu @Vipin sons of Dharampal be released on bail in Case Crime No. 840 of 2005, under Sections  147, 148, 149, 302, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Ami Nagar Sarai, District Baghpat on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Dt. 2.5.2006

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.