Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHOORA GADDI versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhoora Gaddi v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 845 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16015 (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

RESERVED

Court No.50

Criminal Appeal No.845 of 2006

Bhoora Gaddi Vs. State of U.P.

With

Criminal Appeal No. 721 of 2006

Bittoo Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

We have heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Anil Raghav, learned counsel for the appellants (Bhoora Gaddi and Bittoo Chaudhary) and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial court.

Admit.

Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed for bail mainly on the grounds that both the appellants were falsely implicated on account of enmity and the delay in lodging the FIR was not explained by the prosecution. According to him, the incident of murder is said to have taken place at about 2-45 P.M. in front of Police Station Sikandrabad on the main G.T. Road. However, the FIR was lodged on the same day at 3-45 P.M. and undue delay took place in reporting the incident to the Police Station. It was, therefore, contended that incident of stabbing and murder took place in front of the Police Station. However, no Police Personnel even the sentry did not reach there to apprehend the culprits or to rescue the victim. He laid much emphasis on the point that Bhoora, one of the appellants, is physically disabled man and he was totally unable to cause any injury to the deceased or to use the knife allegedly shown in his hand.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the grant of bail mainly on the grounds, inter alia, that incident took place in broad day-light on the main G.T. Road in front of a Police Station at about 2-45 P.M. and FIR was lodged at 3-45 P.M. on the same day in which both the appellants were named. Besides, the appellants were apprehended on the spot by the eyewitnesses and they were taken to the Police Station along with their knives which were allegedly used in the murder of Nizam. It was clearly mentioned in the FIR itself that Bhoora used his left hand in causing the injuries. It was also contended that D.W. 4 Dr. Shiv Nath Singh, a Senior Orthopedic Surgeon of the District Hospital as well as a Member of the Medical Board, constituted under the chairmanship of the local C.M.O. for the purpose of examination of the appellant (Bhoora), disclosed in very clear words that left palm along with fingers (except ring-finger and little finger) were in good condition and the appellant could catch knife and do any work. It was, therefore, urged that left hand of the appellant (Bhoora) was functional as he could do or perform any act with his left hand. Moreover, he could draw or drag anybody/thing/article with the right elbow, forearm also. Both the appellants were in jail during trial.

We have given our anxious considerations to the entire arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. We have gone through the entire record, including prosecution evidence and the evidence led by the accused also carefully. Taking into consideration the entire details of the incident, including place of occurrence, prompt FIR, nomination of the appellants in the FIR, spot arrest along with the weapons (knives) used in committing the murder, number of injuries on the body of the deceased and testimony of the eyewitnesses supported by the statement of defence witness (Dr. Shiv Nath Singh), we are of the opinion that both the appellants do not deserve bail. Consequently, their prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

Date: 14th September, 2006

OP/845/06


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.