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


Mukhtar Ansari v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 13411 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13508 (17 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).


Hon'ble Ravindra Singh , J.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and  learned A.G.A.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned A.G.A.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case according to prosecution version the role of exhortation is assigned to the applicant and the role of firing is assigned to other co-accused and 39 witnesses have been examined in the court, but all the witnesses did not support the prosecution story and they have been declared hostile and no action has been taken against them by the prosecution in respect of perjury etc. After considering the statement of the witnesses co-accused Vakeel Ahmad has been released on bail by this court on 7.7.2006 in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 12285 of 2006. It has not been denied by the learned A.G.A. The case of the applicant is on the better footing with the case of above mentioned co-accused.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without entering into the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Let the applicant Mukhtar Ansari involved in Case Crime No. 1580 of 2005, under Sections147, 148, 149, 427, 435, 436, 302, 307 and 153-A I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mau be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy    sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and he shall co-operate with the trial.

Dt: 17.8.2006



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.