Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. ARIF AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Arif And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3993 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9409 (11 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. 3993 OF 2006.

Mohd. Arif and another Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Bhagwati Prasad Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Tiwari for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Supplementary affidavit has been by Sri M.K. Rajwansi Advocate which is taken on record.

The submission on behalf of the applicant is that according to the first information report, four persons are alleged to have participated in the offence whereas the post mortem report shows that there are six injuries as a result of three fires. Three fire arm wound of entry and three fire arm wound of exist has been shown. It is thus emphatically argued that it appears that the participation of one of the accused has been falsely shown. The next submission is that there are no eye witness according to the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded during the trial which is annexed along with supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel has tried to show that they have admitted in their statements that they were sitting in the house when the shots were fired.

Learned counsel for the complainant has emphatically stated that the incident has taken place in the broad day light and the first information report is also prompt one and there was motive to commit the offence. It is not a case for bail. I am not inclined to give my opinion on the statements recorded during the trial. The bail application of the applicants is rejected.

Learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi is directed to complete the Sessions Trial No. 907 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Since the witnesses of fact have already beeen examined, there shall be no delay in completing the trial within the period given above without granting unnecessary adjournment to either parties.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of one week.

Dt/-11.5.2006.

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.