Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ashok Kumar Vs. State

Ashok Kumar vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 16, 2002
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/709814

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl. M.M. 2741/2002
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439--Bail--Case under Sections 302/120B/34 r/w Sections 25/27, Arms Act--Allegation against petitioner is that the one country made pistol was recovered from him at the instant of co-accused who made disclosure statement to the effect that he had taken pistol from the petition...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B and 302; Arms Act - Sections 25 and 27

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar

Advocate U.S. Chaudhary, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B and 302; Arms Act - Sections 25 and 27
Reported In
2002(64)DRJ610

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 439--bail--case under sections 302/120b/34 r/w sections 25/27, arms act--allegation against petitioner is that the one country made pistol was recovered from him at the instant of co-accused who made disclosure statement to the effect that he had taken pistol from the petitioner for committing offence-no independence evidence to prove that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy except his own disclosure statement which is not admissible in evidence--petitioner admitted to bail. - - 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.o.p. dwivedi, j.1. the petitioner was arrested on 27th april, 2002 in case of fir no. 37/2002, under sections 302/120b/34, ipc read with section 25/27, arms act, p.s. gokalpuri, delhi. the only allegation against him is that the one country made pistol was recovered from him at the instant of co-accused aarif who made disclosure statement to the effect that he had taken pistol from the petitioner for committing of- . fence. besides sections 25/27 of the arms act, the petitioner was roped under section 302 with the and of 120-b/34 ipc. but there is no independence evidence to prove that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy except his own disclosure statement which is not admissible in evidence. challan has already been filed. he is no more required for investigation. there is no evidence of motive against the appellant. admittedly he did not participated in the commission of crime.2. accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.3. cri.m.m. 2741/2002 stand disposed of.4. dusty.

Full Judgment

O.P. Dwivedi, J.

1. The petitioner was arrested on 27th April, 2002 in case of FIR No. 37/2002, under Sections 302/120B/34, IPC read with Section 25/27, Arms Act, P.S. Gokalpuri, Delhi. The only allegation against him is that the one country made pistol was recovered from him at the instant of co-accused Aarif who made disclosure statement to the effect that he had taken pistol from the petitioner for committing of- . fence. Besides Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner was roped under Section 302 with the and of 120-B/34 IPC. But there is no independence evidence to prove that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy except his own disclosure statement which is not admissible in evidence. Challan has already been filed. He is no more required for investigation. There is no evidence of motive against the appellant. Admittedly he did not participated in the commission of crime.

2. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

3. Cri.M.M. 2741/2002 stand disposed of.

4. dusty.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial