PATWARI versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Patwari v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 14801 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13287 (9 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.45  

         Crl. Misc. Bail Application  No.14801 of 2006.

Patwari      ---------             Applicant

        Vs.

State of U.P       ----   Opp. Party.

                              ----------------

Hon. K.N.Sinha,J.

   Heard Sri Rajul Bhargawa, learned counsel for  applicant, Sri V.K. Solanki, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A.

     There was some dispute between applicant and deceased. In fact Nizam was the grand son of informant who used to drive the car of deceased Allahnoor. The marriage of Nizam had taken place with the daughter of accused Patwari.  Nizam went to Patwari to take his wife but applicant Patwari refused  saying that you leave the driving of deceased and drive his vehicle then he will send the daughter. There was altercation between the applicant and the applicant  fired a shot on him who ultimately died.

      The evidence of two or three witnesses have been recorded.  The learned counsel for the  applicant  has submitted that informant  Shakoor has not supported the case. The typed copy of the statements, annexure-2, shows that  he completely denied every steps of the prosecution  story. He was declared hostile. The statement of two more witnesses namely  Smt. Sitara, P.W-2 and Nizam, P.W-3, have been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that  P.W-2 Smt. Sitara is not witness in the F.I.R and Nizam, P.W-3, was never a witness of fact and he has been examined as witness of fact  just to give colour and his statement is not trustworthy. He also stated that P.W-3,  Nizam, is a witness of Panchayatnama and in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C he has only stated about Panchayatanama and not even a word about the fact of the case.

    Thus, considering the above facts and circumstance of the case, I find it a fit case of bail.

     Let applicant  Patwari be released on bail, in case Crime No. 459 of 2005, under Sections 302 I.P.C, Police Station Brindawan, District Mathura, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal  bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.

Dt. 8.8.2006.

G.S(9)(14801)

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.