Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BANDHAN versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bandhan v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4515 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13380 (11 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

Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance today on behalf of the appellant, the same is taken on record. The name of Sri Singh shall also be shown in the cause list as counsel for the appellant.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the judgment under appeal.

Admit.

Office is directed to summon the trial court record within a period of six weeks.

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that according to FIR, the appellant (Bandhan) was armed with a country made pistol and he is also said to have fired at the deceased (Surendra Singh). Co-accused Ramesh and Keshav were carrying bombs and they are said to have exploded the bombs to kill Surendra Singh. It is urged with vehemence that the deceased had blast injuries and was admitted in the hospital as a case of blast injuries where he expired after twenty minutes of admission. It is also contended that Surendra Singh was not in a position to give any dying declaration to the doctor and as such, the court below erred in placing reliance on the same. It has also been pointed out that ante-mortem injuries no. 1 and 2 which were allegedly caused by bomb were found to be fatal and the doctor conducted autopsy found no injury caused by Tamancha. P.W.2 Om Prakash claimed to have heard the sound of bomb blast. It has also been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that he was on bail in the court below.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the doctor-conducting autopsy found pellets. It means, the appellant used country made pistol in causing ante-mortem injuries and he does not deserve bail.

After having gone through the judgment carefully and considered the submission made on behalf of the parties, we find it appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellant-Bandhan 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., Deoria in S.T. No. 515 of 1997 State Vs. Keshav and others.

If the appellant deposits a sum of Rs.5000/- as fine in the court below within one month from today, the recovery of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal.

11.8.2006

OP/4515/06


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.