Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANUJ KANNAUJIYA versus STATE OF U.P

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anuj Kannaujiya v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 8576 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 8842 (3 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

CRIMINALMISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 8576 OF 2005.

Anuj Kannaujiya Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, assisted by Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh Advocate for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The occurrence has taken place at 7.30 A.M. in the month of June and the first information report has been registered at 12.15 A.M. on the same night. The applicant is one of the two named accused. They are alleged to have fired at the deceased, as a result of which he died. The argument on behalf of the applicant is that the occurrence has taken place when it was dark and there was no source of light. The only light mentioned is torch. The second argument is that it is apparent that when the assault was made, no one could see the incident and, therefore, inquest report as well as Challan Nash shows that only Section 302 is mentioned. Subsequently other provisions have been added when several other accused were implicated. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after considerable delay and, therefore, the prosecution case is said to be doubtful.

Learned counsel for the complainant has specifically pointed out that in the first information report, it is clearly mentioned that the injuries caused on the head and abdomen region of the deceased has been witnessed by the complainant who had witnessed the incident in the torch light. The assailants were known to the complainant and, therefore, it can not be said that no one could recognize the assailants.

I have perused the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The injuries have been caused from a close range. Specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. No good ground for bail is made out. The bail application is accordingly rejected.

Dt/-3.5.2006.

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.