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


Vedpal Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 1996 of 1996 [2006] RD-AH 1342 (18 January 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. 27

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1996 of 1996

Sri Vedpal Singh ..........................................Applicant


State of U.P. and others ..................................Opposite parties


Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.

In this case a first information report was lodged  by Sundar Lal on 9.2.1995 that the police party, consisting of Station Officer, Bahilpurwa, picked up his son Dev Muni at 12.00 P.M. (noon)  and placed him in jeep and took him police station Karvi Kotwali, where his son was given beating with the aid of Constable Sanjeev Rai, as a result of which Dev Munni died. This incident was witnessed by passerby, but from the fear of the police, they are not coming forward to give evidence. The report of this incident was lodged at 11.20 P.M. on the same night.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as a matter of fact, the applicant had dropped the deceased at the police station and then he went away in connection with some criminal case. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to G.D. entry of the police station concerned. However, even without going into the admissibility of the G.D. entry in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I feel that the said G.D. entry instead of helping the applicant, goes against him because it mentions that the applicant Ved Pal, S.O. Bahilpurwa had dropped a person at the police station and he said that he was proceeding to Court. From the mouth of that man foam was coming out and he seems to be in a very bad condition. After that the deceased was rushed to the hospital. Therefore, the defence of the  applicant that he had simply dropped the applicant in the police station and thereafter whatever was done, was the act of co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Rai, is not acceptable.

Similarly, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to some paragraphs of the counter affidavit, wherein it is mentioned that according to the panel of doctors, the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries received within 5 to 10 minutes before death. Exact nature of the version of the doctors and the reliability of their opinion can only be appreciated during the trial.  

Another distressing feature of this case is that this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself appears to be without jurisdiction because prior to the submission of the charge sheet when the case was only being investigated by the CBCID, this application had been filed.

It may be noted that now counter affidavit has been filed and the counter affidavit by the CBCID indicates that investigation fully corroborates the versions of the FIR and even sanction has been obtained for the prosecution of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to a judgement of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 1995, decided on 5.4.1995 passed in respect of the same applicant (Annexure 8) that he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond. I do not think that the relief granted by allowing the applicant to be released on furnishing personal bond should be granted in the present case.

In this view of the matter, I do not think that any relief should be granted to the applicant in this application. Accordingly it is dismissed.

Stay order date 10.7.1996 is vacated.

The court below is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously in view of the delay which has already ensued because of the pendency and stay order granted by this Court on 10.7.1996.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within two weeks positively.

Dated: 18.1.2006



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.