inderjit Vs. State

inderjit vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 15, 1983

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/692668

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/692668
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: H.L. Anand, J.
Decided On: Mar 15, 1983
Case Number: Cr. Misc. (M) No. 161 of 1983
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

inderjit

Advocate K.K. Sud, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate Harish Gulati, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 302
Reported In: 24(1983)DLT152A

Excerpt

- - 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.h.l. anand, j.1. the petitioner who is a young student of 18 years is standing trial for an offence under section 302/34 ipg. the victim died on account of injuries sustained in a fight between two groups of students when they were out to play hockey in the morning at 5.30 a.m. the f.i.r. does not give the names or particulars of any of the accused persons. the petitioner was arrested 6 days after the f.i.r. the victim did not leave any dyingdeclaration. it is said that the only part attributed by the prosecution story to the petitioner is, holding up the victim, and the use of any instrument is not attributed to the petitioner. it is further urged that having regard to the totality of circumstances, there could not have been any intention to kill. the investigation has since concluded. part of the prosecution evidence has also been recorded. having regard to all the circumstances, the accused would be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. dusty.

Full Judgment

H.L. Anand, J.

1. The petitioner who is a young student of 18 years is standing trial for an offence under Section 302/34 IPG. The victim died on account of injuries sustained in a fight between two groups of students when they were out to play hockey in the morning at 5.30 a.m. The F.I.R. does not give the names or particulars of any of the accused persons. The petitioner was arrested 6 days after the F.I.R. The victim did not leave any dyingdeclaration. It is said that the only part attributed by the prosecution story to the petitioner is, holding up the victim, and the use of any instrument is not attributed to the petitioner. It is further urged that having regard to the totality of circumstances, there could not have been any intention to kill. The investigation has since concluded. Part of the prosecution evidence has also been recorded. Having regard to all the circumstances, the accused would be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. dusty.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1983 Same Parties inderjit vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge H.L. Anand, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 439; Indian Pena...

Criminal