Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJEET AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajeet And Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5827 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16945 (27 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.

Sri Yogendra Mishra, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance today on behalf of the complainant-respondent, the same is taken on record. When the case is listed next, his name shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for the complainant-respondent.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned judgment.

Admit.

Office is directed to summon the trial court record within a period of six weeks.

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that appellant no.3 is said to have called Karmveer and appellant nos. 1 and 2, who were allegedly armed with lathies, are said to have assaulted the deceased. However, the doctor who conducted autopsy found only one contusion on the forearm as well as fracture of second, third and fourth of metacarpal bone. All the appellants were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that it was Dharmraj who called the deceased from his house.

Looking to all facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enlarge all the three appellants on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants-Ajeet, Mahendra and Dharamraj 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., Mathura in S.T. No. 352 of 2004 State Vs. Dharamraj and others.

The appellants are allowed one month time from today to deposit the entire amount of fine in the court below.

27.9.2006

OP/5827/06


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.