Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MEERA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Meera & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2623 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9431 (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. 21

Criminal Appeal No. 2623 of 2006

Smt. Meera and another Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble. Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

Heard.

Admit.

Office is directed to summon the record within four weeks.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the judgment under appeal also.

Admittedly, the appellants are Jethani and Jeth of the deceased respectively. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that both the appellants lived separately and as such, there was no question of demand of any dowry from the parents of the deceased. Moreover, they played no role in committing dowry death of Smt. Rekha, wife of Kamlesh Kumar. It is also urged that both the appellants were on bail in the trial court and they did not misuse the liberty allowed to them. It is also contended that hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. At present, the appeals of 1982-83 are being listed for hearing.

It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court on 4.5.2006 and the copy of the bail order granted to co-accused, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased in criminal appeal No. 2441 of 2006, was produced before us. We find that the aforesaid order was passed by a single Judge in this case. The maximum sentence awarded was life sentence and therefore, the appeal by any of the accused was cognizable by a Division Bench. The jurisdiction of the Benches in this Court is governed by maximum sentences passed in the judgment and not by the individual sentences recorded against individual accused. Hence, we are of the view that the single Judge was not empowered to grant bail to co-appellants and in fact the appeal was wrongly entertained by him. In this order the accused person has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and the learned single Judge entertained the appeal and granted bail. We are of the view that the same is not appropriate. The Reporting Section is directed to take this matter into consideration while reporting the appeal in future.

Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to release the appellants on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants-Smt. Meera and Rajesh Singh @ Rajendra Singh 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., Jalaun in S.T. N0. 561994 State Vs. Kishun Singh and others provided the appellants deposit the entire amount of fine within a period of one month from today.

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

11.5.2006

OP/2623/06


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.