Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PREMCHANDRA & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Premchandra & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 296 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11883 (20 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.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the judgment under appeal and trial court record also.

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that according to prosecution version, as contained in the FIR, all the three appellants were armed with country made pistols and on account of enmity between the parties, they are said to have fired at the deceased (Puttu Lal), brother of the informant, at about 6-40 P.M. on 23.3.2001. Puttu Lal fell down and expired instantaneously. It is pointed out that Dr. Agarwal, who conducted autopsy, found eleven injuries in all on the body of the deceased, including two incised wounds and one penetrating wound caused by knife and remaining eight injuries were wounds of entry/exit wounds. It has, therefore, been canvassed before us that no explanation at all was furnished on behalf of the prosecution regarding injuries no. 1,3 and 11. The deceased was a hardened criminal and had a number of enemies. Therefore, the possibility that Puttu Lal was done to death somewhere else by unknown assailants, cannot be ruled out and the appellants were falsely implicated. It is also submitted that all the three appellants were on bail and hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the appellants might have caused incised and penetrating wounds after firing and their complicity in the crime has been established.

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. We have considered the oral and documentary evidence also. In our opinion all the three appellants are entitled to be released on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants-Premchandra, Babu and More Pal 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., Budaun in S.T. No.814 of 2001 State Vs. Premchandra and others and in S.T. No. 365 of 2002 State Vs. Premchandra provided the appellants deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- as fine in the court below within a period of one month from today. The recovery of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal.

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

20.7.2006

OP/296/06


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.