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


Mumtaz v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7449 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 2979 (22 February 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 R.C. Deepak, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

Heard S/Sri L.K. Pandey and Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant-accused Mumtaz, S/Sri P.C. Srivastava and Vinay Singh, learned counsel for the appellants-accused Samasuddin alias Maulan, Pappu and Kutubuddin, Sri Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused that F.I.R. indicates the explosion of one bomb awakening the informant from sleep, but there is no disclosure of the explosion of second bomb in the first information report, but the appellants-accused named-above alleged to have been seen running therefrom. They further submit that a perusal of the post-mortem examination report including the statement of the doctor would indicate that the injuries found on the person of the deceased would be caused by a single bomb. Therefore, it is a case wherein nobody has witnessed  the actual occurrence.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. submit that there is positive evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that Samasuddin alias Maulan and Mumtaz have exploded the bomb.

Contradicting this fact, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-accused Mumtaz submits that the appellant had no motive to participate in the alleged offence, but if any motive may be, it can be with Samasuddin alias Maulan.

Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the merit thereof, we are of the view that the appellants Mumtaz, Kutubuddin and Pappu have made out a case for their release on bail.

In above view of the matter, the appeal is admitted.

Issue notice.

The appellants Mumtaz, Kutubuddin and Pappu convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC in S.T. No.187 of 1998, Police Station Suriyava, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The realisation of half of the fine imposed upon appellants Mumtaz, Kutubuddin and Pappu shall remain stayed during the pendency of their appeals before this Court and the remaining half of the fine shall be deposited forthwith.

The appeal be listed on 20th April, 2007 for further hearing for the disposal of the bail application of Samasuddin alias Maulan.

Dated : 22nd February, 2007.



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.