High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sanjay Kumari & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4448 of 2006  RD-AH 13347 (10 August 2006)
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.
Sri D.R. Chaudhary, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance today on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record. The name of Sri Chaudhary shall also be shown in the cause list as counsel for the complainant.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the judgment under appeal.
Office is directed to summon the trial court record within a period of six weeks.
It is contended on behalf of the appellants that they were not named in the FIR and their names were disclosed to the wife of the deceased by co-accused Vijendra and that too after expiry of two weeks. Besides alleged extra judicial confession of the appellants, there is no other evidence to connect them with the crime in question
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has not disputed the aforesaid submission made on behalf of appellant's learned counsel.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there was no occasion for the wife of the deceased to give false statement.
Having considered the entire submissions made on behalf of the parties and the judgment under appeal, we are of the opinion, that both appellants are entitled to be released on bail during pendency of appeal.
Let the appellants-Sanjay Kumar and Ram Pal be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 1853 of 1993 State Vs. Vijendra and others.
If each of the appellants deposits a sum of Rs.5000/- as fine in the court below from today, the recovery of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.