Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FIROZ KHAN versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Firoz Khan v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18984 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5205 (7 November 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 accused applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

Accused applicant Firoz Khan son of Muntiyaz Khan @ Nanhey Khan  has prayed for release on bail in case Crime NO. 203 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC P. S. Binawar,  District: Budaun.

According to prosecution case, accused is alleged to have committed murder of his own father Muntiyaz Khan in the night of 2/3-6-2005 at about 11 p.m.  F.I.R. lodged by elder brother of the deceased on 3.6.2005 at about 4 p.m. shows that  Muntiyaz Khan had three sons and three daughters from first wife who is alive.  Muntiyaz Khan had second marriage and this annoyed first wife and her children. Both the wives lived separately. In the night of 2/3-6-05 at about 11 p.m., Muntiyaz Khan  was abusing  while he was in drunken condition. His son asked him not to abuse. When  Muntiyaz Khan was coming down the stairs, accused applicant  gave the blow with wooden fanti on the head of  Muntiyaz Khan as a result of which he died on the spot.

The post mortem report shows that deceased received one lacerated wound on back of his head in left side and cause of death has been noted as brain haemorrhage due to ante mortem head injuriy.

Learned counsel for the accused applicant has contended that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that he had no intention to kill his father. He has further contended that there was no light and that the first information report was lodged before the incident was committed as is apparent from the F.I.R., which shows that incident took place on 3.6.2005  dh chrh jkr at 11 p.m., whereas the report  was lodged on 3.6.2005 at about 4 p.m.. On this basis he has contended that the incident took place on 3.6.2005 at 11 p.m., whereas report was lodged at 4 p.m. But this contention cannot be accepted as the date 3.6.2005 has been qualified by the words  chrh jkr which shows that the incident relates to the night of 2/3-6-2005.

The contention of learned A.G.A. is that the accused has killed his father and he is not entitled to bail. Although the accused is alleged to have given one blow but in the circumstances of the case, he is not entitled to bail and application is liable to be rejected.

Application is hereby rejected.

Dated: 7.11.2005

RKS/18984/05


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.