Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Amrish Kumar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 13344 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12619 (1 August 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).


Court No.45  

         Crl. Misc. Bail Application  No.13343 of 2006.

Amrish Kumar       ---------     Applicant


State of U.P       ----   Opp. Party.


Hon. K.N.Sinha,J.

          Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A.

        The case is dependent on circumstantial  evidence. The learned counsel for complainant  has cited (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 534, Sahadevan Alias Sagadevan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police , Chennai and submitted  that if the prosecution on the basis of  reliable evidence establishes that  the missing  person was last seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter, held, it is obligatory on the accused  to explain the circumstances in which the missing person and the accused parted company.

        The learned counsel for the complainant  has also submitted that if the circumstances  relied upon by the prosecution are proved beyond  doubt, then the absence of motive would  not hamper a conviction.  This view has been expressed  after the parties have adduced  the evidence and the case was finally  decided. Moreover, in this case  the circumstances are not shown strongly  as revealed  by the affidavit and its annexures.  The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Even in the statement of complainant Rajendra Singh, the applicant is not named.  The statement of Bijendra Singh, witness,  was recorded  who took  the name  of applicant Amrish Kumar. He also claimed that the applicant along with others took the deceased in jungle  and then murdered him. If it was  within his knowledge he could have definitely  informed his other brother Rajendra Singh, complainant.

           Thus, considering the above fact and circumstances of the case  I find  it a fit case for bail. The applicant is admitted to bail.

           Let applicant Amarish Kumar be released on bail, in case Crime No. 131 of 2006. under Sections 302,201,120-B I.P.C, Police Station Babugarh, district  Ghaziabad on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.




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 |

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