Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM BAHADUR & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Bahadur & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6798 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18984 (9 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 M. K. Mittal, J.

This appeal has been preferred by Ram Bahadur and Mahipal against the order dated 19.9.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Budaun in Criminal Case No. 4 of 2006 under Section 446 Cr.P.C.  whereby the application given by the appellants for discharging them has been rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 19.9.2006.

Admit.

Brief facts of the case are that appellants stood sureties for accused Suresh in S. T. No. 229 of 1999. Accused did not appear on the date fixed and notices were issued to the sureties but inspite of personal service they neither appear nor filed any reply thereto. Thereafter learned Court directed for issuing security amount of Rs. 10,000/- from each of the sureties. Order dated 19.9.2006 shows that the accused was in district Jail in some other matter. Thereafter, sureties filed an application for discharge which has been rejected as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since the accused was confined in jail in another case therefore the sureties could not produce him on the date fixed in the Court. In the circumstances, the sureties could not have produce the accused. Although the sureties did not turn up and file any reply to the notice issued to them but there are sufficient ground to exonerate them in the matter.

In the circumstances of the case, appeal is liable to be allowed.

Appeal is allowed. Order dated 19.9.2006 is set aside.

Dated: 9.11.2006

RKS/6798/06


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.