SANJU @ SANJEEV versus STATE OF U.P

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Sanju @ Sanjeev v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 19734 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16385 (19 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 (Mrs.) Saroj Bala,J.

This is an  application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Sanju alias Sanjeev   indicted in case crime No. 310  of 2006  under section 307  I.P.C. P.S. Shamshabad  District Farrukhabad.

Heard Shri V.K. Mishra , learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.  and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of police encounter in which none of the police personnel  sustained injuries. The learned counsel argued that applicant was not arrested at the spot.

The learned A.G.A. argued that recovery of abducted person was made from the jeep in which the applicant and co-accused were aboard.

I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

It is a case of no injury. The applicant was not arrested at the spot. In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.  

Let the applicant Sanju alias Sanjeev   indicted in case crime No. 310  of 2006  under section 307  I.P.C. P.S. Shamshabad  District Farrukhabad , be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Aks/19734/06

19.9.2006

Hon'ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala,J.

This is an  application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Sanju alias Sanjeev   indicted in case crime No. 310  of 2006  under section 307  I.P.C. P.S. Shamshabad  District Farrukhabad.

Heard Shri V.K. Mishra , learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.  and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of police encounter in which none of the police personnel  sustained injuries. The learned counsel argued that applicant was not arrested at the spot.

The learned A.G.A. argued that recovery of abducted person was made from the jeep in which the applicant and co-accused were aboard.

I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

It is a case of no injury. The applicant was not arrested at the spot. In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.  

Let the applicant Sanju alias Sanjeev   indicted in case crime No. 310  of 2006  under section 307  I.P.C. P.S. Shamshabad  District Farrukhabad , be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Aks/19734/06

19.9.2006

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

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.