Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARAT SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bharat Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 17561 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 636 (10 January 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.

Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F. T. C. Court No. 19, Bulandshahar in S. T. No. 609 of 2002 (State Vs. Omkar and others) whereby he directed to summon the accused applicants under Section 147, 148, 302, 201 IPC while allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was named in the F.I.R. but after investigation charge sheet was not submitted against him. Prosecution examined Gangaram, the informant who has stated about the participation of the applicant on oath. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is that applicant is in military service and was on his duty on the alleged date. He also referred to the certificate filed by the applicant in the Trial Court. Learned Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that at this stage the defence of the accused could not be considered as he had no locus to appear. He has placed reliance on the case of Gyanendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. Cr. L. J., 2005 page 2322 decided by  this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicant that learned Trial Court has wrongly allowed the application filed by the prosecution and has erred in summoning the accused applicant is not tenable and cannot be accepted.  Accused has been named in the F.I.R. and the informant complainant also named him on oath in the statement given in the Court and at this stage only a prima facie case has to be seen against the accused applicant. His defence plea of alibi cannot be considered at this stage.

In the circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Dated: 10.1.2006

RKS/17561/05


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.