Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.PUPPY AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt.Puppy And Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16124 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17197 (4 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 applicants Smt. Puppy and Smt. Rajwati involved in case Crime No. 176 of 2006, under section 364-A I.P.C., Police station Tundala, district Firozabad.

Heard Sri  Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that according to the statement of abductee the applicants kept a vigil at him and provided food. The learned counsel argued that the applicants  were not  involved in the abduction nor recovery was made from their possession. According to the learned counsel no demand of ransom was made by the applicants.

The learned AGA  argued that  the applicants are  wife and sister of co-accused Raju who had abducted the child  and held  him as a  captive at his residence.

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

The applicants are women. The applicants are said to have kept vigil at the abductee and provided him food. The applicants were not involved in the abduction nor  recovery was made from their custody. In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.

Let the applicants Smt. Puppy and Smt. Rajwati involved in case Crime No. 176 of 2006, under section 364-A I.P.C., Police station Tundala, district Firozabad, be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

D/-4.10.2006

Mahmood-16124-06


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.