Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BOOTI SINGH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Booti Singh & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4164 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 736 (15 March 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

Court No. 46.

Criminal Appeal No. 4164 of 2003

Booti Singh and others Versus State of U.P.

Connected with

Criminal Appeal No.  5241 of 2003

Baleshwar and others Versus State of U.P.

Hon'ble R. C. Deepak, J.

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

We  have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant,  learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is that the accused appellants on 23.9.1999 at about 10.00 am fired at Rajpal and Ashok, father and younger brother of the complainant Chandrapal. At that time, Rajpal and Ashok were cutting "Chary" in the field and the complainant had gone there to collect it. At that time, the accused Baleshwar, Sanjeev, Sudhir, Booti, Sunder and Dharam Singh armed with Tamancha and Rifle came from the field of Dhoom Singh. They surrounded Rajpal and Ashok and fired at them resulting in their death. Sanjeev also gave but blows to the father of the complainant. The accused Baleshwar and his two sons also fired at the complainant but he narrowly escaped. The incident was seen by Ramesh, Jaiprakash and Surendra also. The complainant lodged written report at Police Station Sardhana, district Meerut, the same day at 10.30 am., the distance between the place of occurance and the Police Station being ½ km.

The postmortem report of Rajpal and Ashok shows that they received fire arm injuries and died as a result thereof. The prosecution case has been stated by the witnesses Chandrapal P.W.-1, Surendra P.W.-2 and Ramesh P.W.-3.

Learned counsel for the accused appellants has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated and that co-accused Dharam Singh has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 27.8.2003 in criminal appeal no. 4049 of 2003. He also contended that there was enmity between the accused Baleshwar, Booti and Sunder and there was no occasion for them to have accompanied other accused persons. Learned A.G.A. contended that the prosecution case has been supported by the witnesses and there is no reason to doubt their presence at the place of occurance. He further contended that the testimony of the witnesses has even been corroborated by the medical evidence. He further contended that co-accused Dharam Singh has been granted bail only on account of the fact that he was on bail during trial and, therefore, the accused cannot claim any parity with co accused Dharam Singh.

The perusal of the record shows that the accused caused fire arm injuries to two persons in broad day light. Although, there has been a litigation between the accused Booti and accused Baleshwar but in view of evidence on record, the participation of the accused appellants in the incident cannot be excluded.

Learned counsel for the accused appellants further contended that more than 5 years have passed and that the accused are entitled to bail but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused are not entitled to bail on this ground. Learned counsel for the accused appellants further contended that the hearing of the appeal be expedited as there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future. This prayer can be considered and it is expedient in the interest of justice that the appeal of the accused appellants be heard expeditiously.

In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no new fact or circumstance, which was not considered while the earlier bail applications were decided, these second bail applications, without prejudice to the merits of the case, are liable to be rejected.

Second bail applications of accused appellants are hereby rejected.

Let the record be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for passing an appropriate order for expeditious hearing of the appeal.

Dated: 15.3.2005

RKS/


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.