Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAMSHED versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jamshed v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 20714 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17074 (3 October 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 Jamshed   indicted in case crime No. 795  of 2006  under sections 307, 504  I.P.C. P.S. Khatauli  District Muzaffarnagar .

Heard Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.  and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complainant in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned the role of firing to co-accused Israr. The learned counsel pointed out that according to the complainant the shot fired by the applicant from riffle did not hit the injured. The learned counsel argued that there is no X-ray or supplementary medical report of the injured. According to learned counsel in the absence of X-ray or supplementary medical report the injuries shall be deemed to be of  simple nature. The learned counsel contended that there is a cross case of the incident  case crime no. C-16 of 2006 under sections 147, 307, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and the applicant sustained injuries in the same course of incident.

The learned A.G.A. argued that the specific role of opening fire has been assigned to the applicant and the injuries are on the vital part of the body.

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

There is a cross case of the incident under sections 147, 307, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and the applicant sustained injuries in the same course of incident. There is no X-ray or supplementary medical report of the injured. In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.  

Let the applicant Jamshed   indicted in case crime No. 795  of 2006  under sections 307, 504  I.P.C. P.S. Khatauli  District Muzaffarnagar , be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Aks/20714/06

3.10.2006


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.