Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAHUL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rahul v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16065 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17090 (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.

Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 16065 of 2006 and 12832 of 2006 in case Crime No. 1206 of 2005 under sections 364, 120-B, I.P.C. Police station New Mandi, district Muzaffarnagar moved on behalf of the applicants Rahul and Nem Pal are being disposed of by a common order.

Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti and Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the witnesses in their statements recorded five months  after the incident  have stated having seen the applicants and co-accused  at the house of  Smt. Savitri wife of complainant's deceased brother four days before the abduction. The learned counsel pointed out that the applicants and co-accused are said to have made extra judicial confessional statement before another set of witness on 12.4.2006. The learned counsel pointed out that witnesses Jai Chand Singh and Sanjai Singh were interrogated on previous occasion but they did not make a disclosure about the above-mentioned facts.

The learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant argued that the applicants were carrying illicit relationship with Smt. Savitri widow of complainant's brother and the victim was abducted as he raised a voice of protest.

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

The witnesses made a belated disclosure about the fact of having seen the applicants and co-accused at the residence of widow of complainant's brother. The extra judicial confessional statement too is said to have been made  five months after  the incident. No recovery has been made in pursuance of disclosure statements of the applicants. In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.

Let the applicants Rahul and Nem Pal involved in case Crime No. 1206 of 2005 under sections 364, 120-B, I.P.C. Police station New Mandi, 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.

D/-3.10.2006

Mahmood-16065, 12832-06


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.