Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNIL KUSHWAHA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sunil Kushwaha v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18241 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 1895 (10 August 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The accused Sunil Kuswaha has prayed for release on bail in case Crime No. 132 of 2004 under Sections 302 IPC, P.S. Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar.

According to prosecution case,  on 20.4.2004 when the complainant along with his brother Narendra Kumar, Smt Brijrani wife of Narendra Kumar, Lallu were returning to their house  after thrashing the wheat from the field and when they were passing from the field of Vinod Kushwaha and reached the corner of the field at about 9 p.m., Sunil Kushwaha accused applicant armed with Tamancha came and said to Narendra that he had been demanding Rs. 75,000/- for Tractor and he would pay it. Thereafter, he fired from country made pistol and the shot hit Narendra, who fell and died at the spot. Witnesses saw the incident in torch light. There was some dispute about the Tractor between the accused and the deceased as has been mentioned in the F.I.R.. The report has been lodged at Police Station same night at 10.45 p.m. The post mortem report shows that the deceased received single firearm wound.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and it is the case of hit and run and only one shot was fired at the deceased. He further contended that there was no light and even the Investigating Officer did not prepare any fard of torches if the witnesses were carrying torchs with them. He further contended that the inquest report shows that it was started at 11 p.m. and if the report was lodged at 10.30 p.m., it could not have been started at such  time as mentioned in the report.

Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the witnesses were returning after thrashing the field at about 9 p.m. and it is natural  that they must have carried torch with them. He also contended that there was exchange of words and there can be no question about the identity of the accused. He has further contended that if there are any latches on the part of Investigating Officer, it cannot entitle the accused for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused is not entitled for bail and his application is liable to be rejected.

Bail application of the accused Sunil  Kushwaha is here by rejected.

Dated: 10.8.2005

RKS/18241/


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.