Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Pappu Yadav & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7184 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 215 (4 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).


Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

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

We have heard Sri G.S. Hajela and Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ramanuj Tripahti, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the impugned judgment, including criminal history of appellants Pappu Yadav and Kare Yadav. The objection filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

Criminal Appeal no. 7184 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 7558 of 2006 are admitted.

Connect this appeal with Criminal Appeal No. 7558 of 2006.

The bail prayer of appellant Naresh Yadav, who is said to be main accused, shall be considered after receipt of record.

Summon the trial court record within eight weeks.

So far as appellants Pappu Yadav and Kare Yadav are concerned, they are admittedly real brothers. It is contended that Kare Yadav admittedly did not succeed in firing and the informant raised alarm and tried to apprehend. Co-accused Pappu Yadav too made an attempt to fire but did not succeed. He caused no injury to the deceased. Both Pappu Yadav and Kare Yadav were on bail during trial.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that incident of murder took place in broad daylight and FIR was lodged within one hour of the incident in which all the assailants were named. It is further contended that Pappu Yadav and Kare Yadav committed several crimes after being released on bail in this case and they are not entitled to bail.

In reply, learned counsel for the appellants has shown a list and has contended that the appellants Pappu Yadav and Kare Yadav were acquitted in several cases and Police submitted Final Report in Crime nos. 543 and 535 of 1997. Only one case under Section   384 I.P.C. is pending against them.

In view of the role assigned to   appellants Pappu Yadav and kare Yadav in the crime in question and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we find it appropriate to enlarge the appellants Pappu Yadav and Kare Yadav on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants-Pappu Yadav and Kare Yadav be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on their executing a personal bond and furnishing bonds of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Mathura in S.T. No. 363 of 1996 State Vs. Naresh Yadav and others.

If each of the appellants deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine within a period of one month  from today in the court below, the recovery of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed against them during pendency of appeal.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.