Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GOBARI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gobari And Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7882 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 1466 (29 January 2007)

 

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

Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

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

Admit.

The objection filed on behalf of the State under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is taken on record.

The office is directed to summon the trial court record.

It is contended that all the three appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that Ram Bharosey who was having a Gandasa and who is said to have played main role expired during pendency of the case in the court below. So far as appellant no.3 (Daya Ram) is concerned, he has been assigned the role of exhorting other appellants to kill Ramajore. According to P.W.1 Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of the deceased, the appellant no.1 Gobari was armed with a spear. However, no injury was caused to the deceased or to the injured with spear in the course of incident.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has contended that the appellants with a view to grab the property of the deceased killed him in broad day light in the presence of his wife and son and none is entitled to bail.

After having considered the entire submissions made on behalf of the parties and the role assigned to the appellants in the crime, we find it appropriate to enlarge the appellants no.1 and 3 (Gobari and Daya Ram) on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants- Gobari and Daya Ram 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., Azamgarh in S.T. No. 479 of 1998 State Vs. Gobari and others.

Each of the two appellants is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10, 000/- ten thousand as fine in the court below within a period of two months from today. The recovery of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal.

The bail prayer of appellant no.2 (Suresh) shall be considered after receipt of record in the month of April, 2007.

29.1.2007

OP/7882/06


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.