Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAKEEL AHMAD & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shakeel Ahmad & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7386 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17906 (15 November 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 AT ALLAHABAD

(Court No.43)

Crl. Appeal No. 7386 of 2007

****

1. Shakeel Ahmad son of Shabbir Ahmad.

2. Kafeel Ahmad son of Shabbir Ahmad.

Both Resident of Village Dahirpur, Pargana and

Tehsil Nazibabad, P.S. Nangal, District

Bijnor. ...... Appellants/Sureties

Vs.

State of U.P. ......Respondent

***

(By Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.)

1.This is an appeal arising out of the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

2.Heard Sri Ghanshyam Joshi advocate for the appellant and Sri Surendra Singh-II, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

3.The two sureties who have filed this appeal, were fined Rs. 50,000/- each because the accused did not appear on the date fixed and warrant for his arrest was issued and the bail bonds of the sureties were forfeited.

4. The contention of the counsel for the appellants- sureties here, is that, after having come to know, that the accused absented himself from appearance in the Court, the sureties made all efforts to get him apprehended by the police, and it was because of their efforts, that the police immediately apprehended the accused.

5.The counsel for the state has not controverted this submission, and the Judge has also not mentioned in his order that the averments of the sureties about rendering help to the police in the arrest of the accused is erroneous.

6.In these circumstances, therefore, the amount of fine imposed, by the Judge seems excessive, and deserves to be reduced.

7.The plea of the sureties about exoneration cannot be accepted but the quantum of fine needs to be reduced.

O R D E R

The fine imposed on the sureties by Special Judge, Bijnor by order dated 8.10.2007 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2007 is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- each for both the two sureties/ appellants, which they will deposit within one month, this order reaches to the Court at Bijnor.

Appeal allowed to that extent.

Dt. 15th November, 2007

n.u.


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.