Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ramesh & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1477 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 894 (29 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).


Court No. 46

Criminal Appeal No. 1477 of 2004.

Ramesh & others Versus State of U.P.

Hon'ble R.C.Deepak, J.

Hon'ble M.K.Mittal, J.

The accused appellant Ramesh has prayed for release on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1477 of 2004. The other accused persons have already been released on bail.

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

Prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that the accused appellant, co-accused Ghasi Ram, Ram Singh and Kallu on 14.10.2001 at about 11.30 p.m. attacked Bansi @ Banshgopal at the Chabutara of Babulal. At that time, the accused Ramesh was armed with Tamancha, whereas the other accused had lalthies. When attacked with lathi Banshgopal ran for his life; he was chased and the accused appellant fired at him with country made pistol, which hit him in the back of chest on left side and he fell down. He was given lathi blows there also. He died. He was lifted by the accused persons and the dead body was kept at the house of Ramesh in such manner that head portion of the body was inside the room whereas leg portion was outside the room. Incident was seen by Chatur Singh, brother of the deceased, Prabhu Dayal, Thakur Das, Lallu Ram and Shanker Lal. Chatur Singh is complainant in this case. The first information report was lodged on 15.10.2001 at 6.30. a.m., the distance between the place of occurance and the Police Station being 10 k.ms.. The postmortem report shows that the deceased received as many as nine contusion and one fire arm wound. Ten pellets were also recovered form his body. The blood was found at the place of incident and blood spots were also found in the way. The dead body was found at the door of the accused appellant by the investigating officer on 15.10.2001. The blood stained shirt of the accused was recovered at his pointing from his house when he was in Police custody. The country made pistol was also recovered by the Police. The report of the chemical examiner shows that blood group (A) was found on the clothes of the deceased as well as on shirt of the accused recovered from his house. Prosecution has examined besides Chatur Singh, Thakur Das and Shanker Lal as eye witnesses of the occurance.

Learned counsel for the accused appellant has vehemently argued that the FIR is belated and there was no source of light. He also contended that the presence of the witnesses is doubtful as they are alleged to have been sitting at the house of Thakur Das but the same has not been shown in the site plan. He further contended that according to Chatur Singh, P.W.-1, he saw the dead body in the morning and therefore it makes his presence doubtful at the time of incident. But learned A.G.A contended that the report was lodged in the morning at 6.30 a.m.. The witnesses saw the incident in torch light and were present at the time of occurance and there is no material contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses. He further contended that blood was found at the place of occurance and the dead body was found at the house of the accused Ramesh and the blood stained shirt was also recovered from the house of the accused at his pointing and the blood group on the clothes of the deceased matched with the blood group found on the shirt of the accused. He further contended that no explanation has been given by the defence regarding the dead body, found at the house of the accused.

It has come in evidence that two hours prior to this incident there was some exchange of words between co-accused Kallu and the deceased. When the complainant was sitting at Chabutara in front of the house of Banshi, the accused Kallu had come and had challenged him and thereafter Banshi had left that place. After some time all the four accused came to the complainant and asked him to bring Banshi. He stated that he had gone somewhere. In this background, if the complainant and the witnesses were present at the house of Thakur Das, there was nothing improbable in it. There is no material inconsistency in the statement of the eye witnesses.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the appeal in any manner whatsoever, we are of the opinion that the accused appellant is not entitled to bail at this stage; therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

Bail application of accused Ramesh is hereby rejected.

Dated:- 29.3.2005.



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.