Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVINDRA versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravindra v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16684 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14393 (25 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.10

  Crl. Misc. Bail Application no. 16684 of 2006                              

Ravindra . . . . . . . . .  .  . .  . . . .  . . . .. .  . .  . . . . . .   . .  . . . . . . . .  .Applicant .

                                   Versus

State  of U.P.  . . . . . . . . .  . . . .  . . . .  . . .  . .  . . . .   . . . . . . . . . .  .Opp.Party.

        ----

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

Applicant, Ravindra is involved in this case crime no. 1005 of 2005 under section 460 I.P.C. of police station Charkhari district Mahoba.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant  and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The prosecution case starts with a first information report lodged by Jagdambika Prasad, Head Clerk of the office of Nagar Kshetra, Charkhari on  25.12.2005 at police station Charkhari in which it was stated that  on the aforesaid date Principal of Maharani Jayanti Devi Kanya Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya gave an information in writing that Smt. Poona Devi, working as a Class IVemployee, had been  continuously absent for three days and so she went to her  house  at about 10 A.M. and found that it was locked  from  outside  and sound of goats was coming from inside. Some neighbours also collected there and incharge of police out post, Sri R.N. Nirala  also came  there. Then the lock was broken open and on entering  the house it was found that Smt. Poona Devi aged about 59 ½ years  was lying dead on a cot inside  the room and the goods lying there were not disturbed. Then she gave this information to the Head Clerk  and he lodged a first information report on the basis of which the police registered  a case under section 460 I.P.C.

During investigation it was stated before the Investigating Officer by one Anirudh  that on 23.12.2005 at about 9 P.M., he was going to take medicines  and when he reached infront of the room of Smt. Poona Devi,  he saw Ismile, Ravindra Lodhi and Deepak Thakur talking to  her and saying to go inside and thereafter  they went inside the house, and subsequently he came to know that Smt. Poona Devi had been murdered, and so he was  confident that  she was murdered  by these persons who are criminals and due to their fear he did not  tell about this incident  earlier to any one. This statement was recorded on 21.2.2006. On the same day Mohammad Rasheed Mansoor  also stated before the Investigating Officer that on 23.12.2005  at about 11 P.M. he was coming from Mahoba and saw that  the aforesaid three persons  were standing  at the door of  Smt. Poona Devi and they were locking  the door from outside. Subsequently he  came to know that Poona Devi had been murdered and incident of theft  had also taken place, and, therefore, he was confident that the above named  persons had murdered her. He also did not tell anything about  this  incident to police due to fear of the accused.

The applicant  has alleged that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the aforesaid statements of Anirudh and Mohammad Raseed Mansoori were recorded  at a very late stage after two months of the  incident  and those allegations do not appear to be correct that they had seen the accused at the house of Smt. Poona Devi on 23.12.2005 and even after coming to know that Poona Devi had been murdered they did not  give any information of this fact  that they had seen the accused persons  at the house of Poona Devi on 23.12.2005. Their assertions made on 23.2.2006 after a lapse of two months from the date of incident appears to be an afterthought and so no reliance  should  be placed upon the same and the applicant should be released on bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances pointed out above,    I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be bailed out.

Let the applicant  named above be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties  in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Dated:25.8.2006

RPP.


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.