Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Aditya Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 25571 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19774 (22 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).


Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

  Heard learned counsel for for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and  learned A.G.A.  

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. , but during investigation only evidence of extra judicial confession has been collected by the I.O. for which it is  the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur, learned counsel for the complainant.

        It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the F.I.R. the role of extortion is assigned to the applicant whereas the role of causing injury is assigned to the co-accused Kedar Singh, Madhur Shyam Yadav and  and Chakku Singh. The statement the first informant under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after about one  month of the alleged occurrence. The second statement of the first informant was recorded in which he had stated that the applicant also discharged shot on the deceased. It has been added only that the deceased has received only one lacerated wound. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of other co-accused.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant is having criminal antecedent.

Let the applicant Aditya Pratap Singh   involved in case crime no. 412 of 2006  under Sections 302,34 ,506   I.P.C.,  P.S. Lotan   District Siddartha Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the condition that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence. He shall report to the Police Station  concerned in the first week of each month till conclusion of the trial to show his good behaviour.

In default of the above condition it shall be open to the learned C.J.M. to cancel the bail of the applicant on police report.

Dated: 22.11.2006

NA/ 25571/06


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.