Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUKESH @ PAPPU versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mukesh @ Pappu v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15591 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 10319 (25 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

Reserved

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15591 of 2005

Mukesh alias Pappu Versus State of U.P.

***

Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Mukesh alias Pappu arraigned in case Crime No. 198 of 2005 under sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police station Sadabad, district Mahamaya Nagar (Hathras).

Heard Sri Days Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA and have perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report and his name came to light from the statement of co-accused. The learned counsel urged that no test identification has been conducted. The learned counsel pointed out that the recovery of looted ornaments is said to have been made in pursuance of disclosure statement of the applicant and on his pointing out. The learned counsel urged that according to the first information report the weight of looted ornaments was about 15.5 tolas whereas the weight of the recovered ornaments is about 48 gms. The learned counsel contended that there being a difference between the weight of the looted ornaments and the recovered ornaments it cannot be said that the recovered ornaments are looted property.

The learned AGA argued that there is a criminal history of 14 cases against the applicant. The learned counsel contended that the recovery of looted property has been made in pursuance of disclosure statement of the applicant.

I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

The applicant is not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant came to light from the interrogation of co-accused Herpal. The applicant was not put up for identification. The weight of the ornaments recovered does not tally with the weight of the looted ornaments. Moreover, the ornaments were not put up for test identification. In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

Let the applicant Mukesh alias Pappu arraigned in case Crime No. 198 of 2005 under sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police station Sadabad, district Mahamaya Nagar (Hathras), be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

D/-25.5.2006

Mahmood


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.