Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARVIND versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arvind v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3685 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3913 (8 March 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

(Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No. 3685  of 2007

***

Arvind son of Rameshwar

Resident of Village Dhhipari P.S.

Chhibramau, District Kannauj   ..... Accused -Applicant.

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Tota Ram son of lala Ram Resident of

Village Dhhipari Police Station Chhibramau,

District Kannauj. ...........Complainant -Opp.parties.

****

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. Applicant is under detention in case crime no. 17/2006 P.S. Chhibramau, District Kannauj for commission of offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

2. Since the police failed to file completion report within a period of sixty days from 24.11.2006 the day of his arrest he filed an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj claiming his release on bail under the provisions of Section 167 (2)  Proviso a (III) of Cr.P.C. which the Magistrate rejected.

3. This is what brings the applicant to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant and Sri R.D.Yadav, Government Advocate for the State.

5. The Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that an offence under Section 366 IPC was punishable with imprisonment of Ten years and fine. Therefore, provisions of Section 167(2) a (ii) are of no help to him.

6. As will appear punishment for an offence under Section 366 IPC as given in the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to Ten years and also fine which implies that imprisonment can be for a term of less than Ten years, and it cannot therefore be said that the minimum sentence under Section 366 IPC will be a term of Ten years or more. The Magistrate seems to have misread the Proviso and his interpretation was erroneous. The applicant is, in the circumstances entitled to bail under Provisions of Section 167 (2) Proviso (a) (ii) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate will, therefore, grant him bail

7. Application allowed.

8.3.2007

3685 /2007/kuldip/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.