Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAM MOHAN KULSHRESTHA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shyam Mohan Kulshrestha v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3568 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11291 (11 July 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. Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

Admit.

Office is directed to summon the trial court record within a period of four weeks.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, on the bail prayer of present appellant.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty of bail. He further contended that nobody is named in the First Information Report. He further submitted that after three days, three persons sprinkled up and claimed themselves to be eyewitnesses of the incident as    P.W 2., P.W.3 and P.W.4. So far as P.W.2 Tunda Ram is concerned, he submitted that he was retired from the Police job ten days prior to the incident and claimed himself to be eyewitness but he did not disclose the incident to anybody and kept mum for 10 days. So far as P.W. 4 is concerned, he was a rickshaw puller, he had also kept silence for three days and did not divulge the incident to anybody. He has made the same criticism of other witness Ramji Lal P.W3 who also kept silenced for three days. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that nobody had seen the incident and the three witnesses were got up witnesses.

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has disputed the aforesaid facts and stated that three witnesses had seen the incident and they have named the accused-appellant.

Without adverting over the merit of the case further, we are inclined to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of appeal.

Let the appellant-Shyam Mohan Kulshresth be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Agra in S.T. N0. 494 of 2004 State Vs.Shyam Mohan Kulshresth. One month's time is granted to the appellant to deposit the entire amount of fine in the court below.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate will send photocopies of the bail bonds to this Court immediately after its acceptance.

11.7.2006

OP/3568/06


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.