Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNEEL AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suneel And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18181 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15186 (1 September 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 Ravindra Singh , J.

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

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the F.I.R. the role of firing is assigned to the applicants and 5 other co-accused persons. Consequently, 2 persons received injuries, who died on the spot, but during investigation, it has been specifically alleged that the shots discharged by co-accused Ram Naresh hit the deceased Ram Lakhan and the shots discharged by co-accused Sultan hit the deceased Karan Singh. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased Ram Lakhan has received one gunshot wound of entry having its exits and deceased Karan Singh has received 2 injuries. Injury no. 1 was firearm wound of entry and injury no. 2 was lacerated wound. According to the statements of the witnesses the applicants did not cause any injury on the persons of the deceased, therefore, they may be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. submits that in this case 2 persons have been done to death by the applicants and other co-accused persons. They are criminal and the alleged occurrence had taken place only because the deceased Ram Lakhan was opposing the criminals and to teach the lesson to Ram Lakhan and other villagers and the applicants and other co-accused persons had murdered two persons and the applicant no. 2 Sowat Singh having a criminal antecedents. He is involved in 8 criminal cases including murder and kidnapping etc and he has not surrendered before the court immediately after the alleged offence, because he is in jail since 21.4.2006 whereas the date of occurrence is 14.6.2003. In case the applicants are released on bail they may tamper with the evidence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and taking into account the criminal history of the applicant no. 2 Sowat Singh, I am of the view that he is not entitled for bail, therefore, his prayer for bail is refused.

However, 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 no. 1 Suneel is entitled to be released on bail.

Let the applicant Suneel  involved in Case Crime No. 36  of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364 and 302  I.P.C.  and Section 10/12 D.A.A. Act, Police Station  Lavedi  District  Etawah be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two  sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Dt: 01.09.2006

Rcv/18181-06


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.