Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PYARE LAL @ BABU versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pyare Lal @ Babu v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3181 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3594 (26 September 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 Sri Ashish Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Accused applicant Pyare Lal @ Babu son of Hardayal has prayed for release on bail in case Crime No. 575 of 2004 under Section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Swar, District Rampur.

According to prosecution case accused is alleged to have given knife blow to deceased Ram Singh on 18.7.2004 at about 2.45 p.m., when he was returning along with the complainant Totaram from his field  to their house. When they reached in the village, the accused along with three others surrounded them and accused is alleged to have given knife blow in the abdomen which is the fatal injury as per post-mortem report. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the accused has been wrongly implicated in this case and that there is no independent witnesses and that no blood was found at the place of occurrence.

Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that eye witnesses were present and they have seen the incident and have stated about the same and 1.75 litres blood was found in the abdominal cavity of the deceased and the knife used as weapon of assault was recovered from the house of the accused applicant on his pointing. He has further contended that there is no reason for false implication of the accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that other co accused have been directed to be released on bail but their case is distinguishable as has also been contended by learned counsel for the complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that no motive has been alleged but the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the presence of the witnesses is there and the motive is not very material.

In the circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, accused is not entitled to bail and his application is liable to be rejected.

Bail application of the accused is hereby rejected.

Dated: 26.9.2005

RKS/3181/05


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.