Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHAJAN LAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhajan Lal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5412 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16013 (14 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 M. K. Mittal, J.

This appeal has been preferred by Bhajan Lal against the order dated 29.8.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge,  Court No. 2, Mahoba in Misc. Case No. 4 f 2005 (Bhajan Lal and others Vs. State of U.P.) whereby it has been directed that the recovery warrant for attachment of the property of the appellant and co surety be issued.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

Admit.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant stood surety of Rs. 50,000/- for accused Brij Bihari in case under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2) of SC/ST Act. Accused absconded and notices were also issued to the sureties but neither they appear nor filed any reply. Subsequently, when the direction for attachment of the property was made appellant appeared and stated that they were made to sign the surety bond when they were in drunken condition.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the accused has been produced in the Court by the sureties, therefore, the interest of justice will be served if the penalty amount is reduced.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused has been produced appeal is liable to be partly allowed.

Appeal is partly allowed with the direction that the appellant shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- within four weeks and in case, he fails to deposit the amount as directed, the Court concerned shall take necessary steps to realise the surety amount as imposed on him.

Copy of this order be issued within 24 hours.

Dated: 14.9.2006

RKS/5412/06


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.