Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHIPAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mahipal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7135 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19811 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble Shiv Charan, J.

Sri Samir Garg, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance today on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record. When the case is listed next, his name shall also be shown in the cause list as counsel for the complainant.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Samir Garg, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have perused the impugned judgment also.

Admit.

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

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that six persons were named in the FIR and they were alleged to have killed Raju, son of the informant with sharp edged weapons. After post-mortem examination, the prosecution developed its case and introduced lathi in the hands of the appellant (Mahipal). According to post-mortem report, injury no. 6 was contused swelling in right upper arm and on X-ray fracture of humerus bone was found.  The appellants was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have submitted that FIR is not encyclopedia and it was not expected from the informant to mention the weapons with which each of the appellants was armed. The appellant along with his associates killed Raju in broad day light at about   4-00 P.M. in the month of September and incident was reported to the Police promptly on the same day at 7-00 P.M.

Looking to all facts and circumstances of the case and the weapon with which the appellant (Mahipal) was armed and caused ante-mortem injury no.6, we are of the opinion that he deserves bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellant-Mahipal be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing bonds of two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 1918 of 1999 State Vs. Rajendra Singh and others.

The appellant is allowed one month time from today to deposit the entire amount of fine in the court below.

22.11.2006

OP/7135/06


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.