High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jidh Pal & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5015 of 2006  RD-AH 15243 (4 September 2006)
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have also perused the impugned judgment.
Office is directed to summon the trial court record within a period of six weeks.
It is contended that P.W.1 Rishi Pal, who was said to be independent witness, did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. The informant admittedly was not an eyewitness. P.W.4 Bholi testified that both the appellants (Jidh Pal and Anand Pal) were carrying country made pistols and both were said to have fired at the deceased (Autari Lal) and the doctor found only one gun shot wound of entry. There were four incised wounds on the body of the deceased.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has contended that it is not clear from the evidence led during trial as to who caused ante-mortem injury no.5 out of the two appellants (Jidh Pal and Anand Pal).
Taking into consideration the entire submissions made on behalf of the parties and the judgment in question, we find it appropriate to enlarge the appellants no. 1 and 3 (Jidh Pal and Anand Pal) on bail during pendency of appeal.
Let the appellants-Jidh Pal and Anand Pal be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Budaun in S.T. No. 239 of 1997 State Vs. Jidh Pal and others, S.T. No. 1057 of 1997 State Vs. Jidhpal and S.T. No. 283 of 2003 State Vs. Ratan Lal.
The appellant is allowed one-month time from today to deposit the entire amount of fine in the court below.
The bail prayer of appellant no.2 (Ratan Lal) shall be considered after receipt of record.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.