BABLU versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Bablu v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 11950 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10658 (19 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

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

         Applicant Bablu has applied for bail in this case crime no. 54 of 2006 under sections 302/201 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act police Station Lodha District Aligarh.

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

         The applicant  was not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged against unknown culprits  on the recovery of dead body. The only evidence against the applicant is that two witnesses, named Chhotey and Salim stated before the Investigating Officer after a lapse of about  seven months after recovery of the dead body that they had seen the deceased in the company of the accused Anwar alias Bundali and Bablu in the night prior to the date of recovery of the dead body and so they were confident that this murder was committed  by the above named accused persons. There is no other evidence against the accused applicant except the evidence of last seen. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof and so the applicant should be bailed out.

The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and he submitted that the accused applicant has confessed his guilt  before  the police and so bail should  not be granted to him. It is to be seen that confession before the police is admissible in evidence  and no discovery or recovery has been made on the basis of the so called confession.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant  deserves to be bailed out.

Let the applicant named above be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Dated:19.6.2006

RPP/Cr.Bail Appl.11950/06

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 |

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