Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ KUMAR @ RAJEEV versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Kumar @ Rajeev v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 22799 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 10103 (23 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

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 22799 OF 2005

Raj Kumar @ Rajeev.............................Applicant.

                   Versus

State of U.P........................................Opposite Party.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Varun Kumar Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 16.8.2005.  New ground on which the second bail application pressed is that the trial was completed and the date was fixed for judgment but at the instance of the complainant, a transfer application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge Baghpat on 4.5.2006, which was rejected on merits on the same day. It was specifically mentioned in the rejection order that the trial is completed and the date for delivery of judgment fixed is 11.5.2006.  Subsequently, a transfer application no. 258 of 2006 was moved before this Court and interim order has been passed, whereby proceedings including delivery of judgment has been stayed till July, 2006. In view of this matter, it is submitted that the trial is completed and the date for delivery of judgment was fixed.  There is no occasion for the applicant to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses.  Proceeding has been got stayed at the instance of the complainant himself. Certain argument was advanced by the counsel for the applicant on merit as well. I am not inclined to hear the argument, which was already advanced in the previous bail application. However, in the light of new development that the delivery of judgment and proceedings have been got stayed at the instance of the complainant, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the following conditions that:

a. he shall file an undertaking before the Sessions Judge

that he will not absent himself on the date fixed in the trial.

b. In the event any complaint is received against him that

he has tried to commit criminal offence during the period of his release, it will be open for the court concerned to make appropriate inquiry  and report this Court so that proceeding for cancellation of bail will be initiated.

Let applicant Raj Kumar @ Rajeev s/o Dayanidhi be released on bail in Case Crime No. 476 of 2004, under Sections  302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Doghat, District Baghpat on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Dt. 23.5.2006

rkg


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.