Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUKHTAR versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mukhtar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 10486 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10596 (9 June 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.10

Crl.Misc. Baill Application No. 10486 of 2006

Mukhtar                     Vs.                State of U.P.

   ....

Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi J.

Heard.

It is alleged that on 23.9.2001 about half past 5.00 p.m. the applicant Mukhtar ,co-accused Ikbal and co-accused Samiullah caused bomb blast injury to the complainant Saleem and his nephew Ahmad Ali. Mohd. Saleem sustained three multiple bomb blast injuries and fourth bomb blast wounds. The bomb blast injury no.4 is on the abdomen, 3" below from the umbilicus. One multiple bomb blows injury is on the  hand.  Ahmad Ali sustained one multiple bomb blast injury.

The applicant's counsel told that the applicant was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C.; that co-accused Ikbal has been admitted to bail by High Court after co-accused remained in jail for seven months.

When the parity with the co-accused is claimed, merely the role is not relevant. Beside the role,  the quality of the evidence available, the period of jail and the Criminal History are also consided to give parity.

The applicant is in jail only from 11.5.2006 whereas the co-accused Ikbal was admitted to bail after he remained in jail for about seven months. The case of the applicant therefore does not stand at par with co-accused Ikbal.

Both the injured sustained the bomb blast injury, moreover the complainant sustained injuries on vital part. In view of the circumstances I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

The bail application is rejected.

Even after rejection of above bail order the learned counsel  argued that the period of seven months is a very long period for remaining in jail and that the case of the applicant stands on the different footing with that of the co-accused Ikbal. He is advised to argue this point as and when he moves the second bail application.

Dt.9.6.2006

Hsc/


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.