High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nafees v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8039 of 2006  RD-AH 1856 (6 February 2007)
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble V.K. Verma, J.
We have heard, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. We have gone through the impugned judgment also.
Criminal Appeal no. 8039 of 2006 and 8052 of 2006 are admitted and connected.
The objection filed on behalf of State under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is taken on record.
The office is directed to summon the trial court record within eight weeks.
It is contended that both the appellants are not named in the FIR. It is submitted with vehemence that admittedly the appellants are also residents of the same village where the incident took place and P.W.2 Ashraf Ali, who is son of the deceased, claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the murder. He, however, did not disclose the names of the assailants to his cousin brother Rafiq. It is further contended that on 28.7.2002 co-accused Mohd. Ahmad was arrested by the Police during investigation and on interrogation he disclosed the names of the appellants and others. Both the appellants were on bail during trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the appellants had a strong motive to commit the crime and the doctor who conducted autopsy found two gunshot wounds of entry on the chest of the deceased.
Considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments advanced before us, we are inclined to release both appellants on bail during pendency of appeal.
Let the appellants-Nafees and Imran 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., Moradabad in S.T. No. 1300 of 2000 State Vs. Imran and others.
Both the appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount of fine in the court below within a period of six weeks from today.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.