SHAHJAD AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Shahjad Ahmad v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6410 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18125 (26 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 Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the judgment under appeal also.

Admit.

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

It is urged that the appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. It is further contended that the appellant was not named in the FIR and no specific role was assigned to him. In other words, he was not assigned the role of causing injuries to the deceased (Nihal Ahmad). During trial, the complicity of the appellant was disclosed by the informant, who claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the incident.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that besides gun shot wounds, the deceased had as many as eight incised wounds on his body which could not be caused by a single person as urged by the appellant's learned counsel. The deceased was done to death by firing and as a result of incised wounds on different parts of the body.

Considering all submissions made on behalf of the parties and all facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, we find it appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellant-Shahjad Ahmad be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two bonds of sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Bijnor in S.T. No. 51 of 2005 State Vs. Parvej and others, S.T. No. 52 of 2005 State Vs. Parvej and others and in S.T. No. 55 of 2005 State Vs. Shahjad.

If the appellant deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine within a period of one month  from today in the court below, the recovery of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal.

26.10.2006

OP/6410/06

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.