Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LULI @ RAMDEEN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Luli @ Ramdeen And Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5439 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16130 (15 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 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 and perused the impugned judgment.

Admit.

Summon the trial court record within a period of six weeks.

Admittedly, there was long standing enmity between the parties. One Dallu was done to death and four members of his family namely, Prema, Smt. Kanti, Smt Shanti Bai and Balloo sustained injuries in the course of incident.

It is contended that P.W.1 Chhidami, who is first informant, and P.W.2 Balloo @ Govind Das , who is brother of the first informant, are related to each other and no independent witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, there were contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the appellants were falsely implicated. It is further urged that all the nine appellants were on bail during trial in the court below and did not misuse the liberty of bail.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that admittedly the appellants had strong motive to commit murder of Dallu and in the course of incident they caused injuries to four persons, including three women. It is further submitted that ante-mortem injuries no. 1 to 3 were caused by appellants Luli @ Ramdeen, Narain Das and Bhagirath, who were having axes in the hands. Besides, appellant no.9 is said to have fired at the chest of the deceased (injury no.8) and these injuries proved fatal. It is also submitted that two co-accused namely, Devendra and Bhagirath committed mischief by setting fire to the house of the informant.

After having considered the entire submissions made on behalf of the appellants, the role assigned to each of the appellants as well as weapons with which they were armed and ante-mortem injuries also, we are of the opinion that appellants no. 4 to 8 (Devendra, Aman, Santu, Ramkishan and Hardas) are entitled to be released on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants No. 4 to 8 (Devendra, Aman, Santu, Ramkishan and Hardas) be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two bonds of sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Jhansi in S.T. No. 273 of 2001 State Vs. Luli @ Ramdeen and others.

If each of the appellants no. 4 to 8 deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- as fine within a period of one month from today in the court below, the remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed against them only during pendency of appeal.

The bail prayer of appellants no. 1,2, 3 and 9 (Luli @ Ramdeen, Narain Das, Bhagirath and Brijbehari) shall be considered after receipt of record.

15.9.2006

OP/5439/06


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.