Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJU versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raju v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5470 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10011 (22 May 2006)

 

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. 54

CRIMINALMISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5470 OF 2006.

Raju Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

The applicant is real brother of the deceased. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. No one is named in the first information report. The applicant, who is said to be present at the time of murder, disclosed to the family members of the deceased that certain unknown assailants had caused the crime and they had also fired at the applicant who   somehow escaped and he was the one who informed the villagers. Subsequently, the villagers disclosed that the applicant had already stated much before the incident, that in the event his brother (deceased) tried to remarry, he will not let him live. There are a number of statements of the witnesses. The story of firing made at the applicant by unknown assailants stands belied on account of absence of empty cartridges at the scene of occurrence. At this stage, the circumstances clearly point out a finger at the applicant who has admitted to be present at the scene of occurrence. Besides, the story of firing stands completely belied on perusal of the post mortem report. The story of unknown miscreants was given by the applicant with a view to cover up his own misdeeds. I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is rejected at this stage.

Learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly is directed to expedite and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him without granting undue adjournment to either parties unless and until compelling circumstances arise to do so.

Dt/-22.5.2006.

Rmk.


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.