Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHANU PRATAP versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhanu Pratap v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 8407 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 9583 (16 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. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 8407 OF 2005

Bhanu Pratap.......................................Applicant.

                   Versus

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

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

Heard Sri G.P. Dikshit, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

According to narration of the First Information Report, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 1:30 p.m. and the applicant along with other co-accused including his brother Prem Singh came on the spot and the shot was fired by co-accused Prem Singh  at Pt. Brij Mohan Sharma, who died as a result of firearm injuries.  Subsequently, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant Daya Shanker has changed version of the F.I.R. and assigned role of firing at the deceased to the present applicant, which resulted in death of Pt. Brij Mohan Sharma.

It is argued that there is a single gun shot wound of entry.  According to the First Information Report, it was accused Prem Shankar, who caused firearm injuries to the deceased, whereas in the statement, the complainant has changed version of the F.I.R. and attributed this role to the present applicant.  Therefore, at this stage, Bhanu Pratap is entitled for bail since co-accused Prem Singh has already been enlarged on bail.  There are other lacerated injuries, which the prosecution claims to have caused by hard and blunt object.  

Explanation given by the learned A.G.A. that at the time of lodging of the First Information Report, since the complainant had also received injuries and, therefore in a state of confusion, role of firing was given to co-accused Prem Singh.

Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail.

Let applicant Bhanu Pratap s/o Fateh Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302  I.P.C., Police Station Tundla, District  Firozabad on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Dt. 16.5.2006

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.