Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAILASH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kailash & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6477 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18875 (8 November 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 appellants, Sri Ajai Maurya, 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 that the incident in question is said to have taken place at 10-00 P.M. and the mother and father of the informant are said to have been killed by the appellants. The appellants are said to have caused the death by strangulation and they used a nylon rope, which was lying at the scene of the incident itself. It is contended with vehemence that FIR was lodged on the next day at            12-30 P.M. at Police Station Hathgaon situate at a distance of three kilometers only and this delay in lodging the FIR was not explained by the prosecution. All the appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. It is submitted that besides the informant, no witness supported the prosecution story.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that informant did not go to the Police Station to lodge the FIR in the night or in the morning on account of fear. Moreover, he did not lodge any protest and made no attempt to apprehend the criminals. He is the only son of his parents and as such, he could not dare to apprehend the assailants.

After having considered the arguments advanced before us and taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case as well as delay in lodging the FIR and this fact that the incident took place in the night, we are of the opinion that all the three appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants-Kailash, Hira Lal and Ramesh be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on their executing a personal bond and furnishing bonds of two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Fatehpur in S.T. No. 123 of 2004 State Vs. Kailash and others.

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

8.11.2006

OP/6477/06


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.