Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Udal & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1567 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9147 (8 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).


Court No. 21

Criminal Appeal No. 1567 of 2006

Udal and others Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble. Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.



We have heard Sri Nishant Mehrotra, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, on prayer for bail and Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the complainant and  learned A.G.A. in opposition and perused the impugned judgment.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were armed with knives. He further contended that there were two injuries on non-vital parts of the body and rest of the injuries were not sufficient to cause death. There were total seven injuries and accused persons were six in number and in fact no accused person has repeated any blow. Hence, the intention to murder coupled with unlawful assembly cannot be presumed in this case, and according to learned counsel for the appellants, the case will not travel beyond the offence under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the bail and moreover the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. At present, appeals of 1982-83 are being listed for hearing.

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that out of total seven injuries at least two injuries are on non-vital parts of the body and rest of three injuries are not sufficient to cause death as they are on eye brow and ear without any intentional damage.

On facts and evidence on record as is mentioned in the impugned judgment, we consider it appropriate to enlarge the appellants on bail during the pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants-Udal, Virendra and Munish be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J. M., Bulandshahar in S.T. No.  1330 of 1999  State V. Netrapal and others and S.T. No. 1726 of 1999, State Vs.  Udal provided the appellants deposit the entire amount of fine in the court below within a period of one month from today.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate will send photocopies of the bail bonds to this Court immediately.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.