Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOBAN versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Soban v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15796 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15983 (13 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

Court No. 47

Criminal Misc.(Second) Bail Application No. 15796 of 2006

Soban Vs.  State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This is second bail application. Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 4792 of 2006 has been rejected on 9.5.2006 after considering the case on its merits.

Heard Sri J.S. Sengar and Sri A.K.Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant:

1.That in the order dated 9.5.2006 it has been mentioned that the deceased Zulkar Nain had received four gun shot wounds whereas the deceased Mahjabeen has received 4 gun shot wounds of entry  and the deceased Zulkar Nain  had received one gun shot wound of entry having its exit wound. There is a cross version of the alleged occurrence. The injuries received by the applicant's side have not been explained.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the above mentioned contention there is no new ground in this bail application. All the grounds have already been considered and it appears that indefinitely in the order dated 9.5.2006 the name of the deceased Zulkar Nain was mentioned at the place of the deceased Smt. Mahjeebn and at the place of Mahjabeen the name of Zulkar Nain was mentioned, Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail. His prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt. 13.9.2006

NA


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.