High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Satish Chandra v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2407 of 2005  RD-AH 15408 (5 September 2006)
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial court.
It is contended that the appellant was not named in the FIR lodged by Chaukidar. Subsequently, he was named on the basis of suspicion. It is further contended that three rickshaw pullers, all residents of the village of the deceased and of the same caste, were examined by the prosecution to show that they saw the deceased in the company of the appellant. The appellant was on bail in the court below and is in jail since his conviction.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is evidence of last seen by three witnesses.
After having considered the entire submissions made on behalf of the parties, we find it a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of appeal.
Let the appellant-Satish Chandra be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 319 of 2002 State Vs. Satish Chandra.
If the appellant deposits a sum of Rs.5000/- as fine in the court below within a period of one month from today, the recovery of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.