Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAHDEO versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sahdeo v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 21571 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 11894 (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

Court No. 54

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 21571 OF 2005

Sahdeo Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Roshan Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Bharti Advocate for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The occurrence had taken place on 28.7.2005 at 1.00 P.M. and the first information report was registered on the same day at 2.05 P.M. Seven accused are named in the first information report and all of them have been attributed to be armed with fire arm. The present applicant Sahdeo is said to be armed with Tamancha of 315 bore.

The submission on behalf of the applicant is that a number of injuries caused to the deceased as well as injured witness rules out participation of seven accused. The medical evidence do not corroborate ocular version of the first information report. Looking at the number of injuries, it is a case of false implication of some of the accused.

Learned A.G.A. and Sri Pankaj Bharti have disputed the arguments of the counsel for the applicant.

I have given careful consideration to the documents and other aspect of the case. It is broad day light incident. The first information report is prompt one. Besides there is an injured witness. This can not be ascertained at this stage regarding participation of a number of persons viz-a-viz the injuries on the deceased and injured. I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. The bail application is rejected at this stage.

The learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar is directed to expedite and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him without granting undue adjournment to either parties unless and until compelling circumstances arise to do so.

Dt/-20.7.2006.

Rmk.


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.