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.

Ramesh. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Ramesh. vs State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 03, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912286

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
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20225 of 2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 25.02.2004 made in R.E.A.No.954 of 1995 in REP.No.1/93 by the Hon'ble Additional Sub-Judge, Salem, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking to implead themselves in the execution proceedings...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh.

Advocate V.P.Gupta, Adv.

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302

Excerpt

prayer: civil revision petition filed under article 227 of constitution of india against the order dated 25.02.2004 made in r.e.a.no.954 of 1995 in rep.no.1/93 by the hon'ble additional sub-judge, salem, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking to implead themselves in the execution proceedings in rep no.1/93 and thereby permit them to contest the claim of the first respondent.1. heard learned counsel for the applicant, shri dinesh kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and learned a.g.a. appearing for the state. 2. it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the f.i.r. there is general allegation against all the accused persons but witness amar singh in his statement stated that co-accused harish chandra had fired shot which hit on the chest of the deceased. it is further contended that ante mortem injury no.3 has not been explained which is stab wound. 3. learned private counsel for the complainant contended that there was motive on the part of the applicant and all the accused persons have fired shot and thereafter co-accuse 4. learned a.g.a. has supported the same facts. 5. the main allegation is against the co-accused harish chandra and case of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused harish chandra. applicant is in jail since 5.5.2010. 6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. let the applicant ramesh involved in case crime no. 776 of 2010, under sections302 ipc police station hasanpur district j.p. nagar is released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R. there is general allegation against all the accused persons but witness Amar Singh in his statement stated that co-accused Harish Chandra had fired shot which hit on the chest of the deceased. It is further contended that ante mortem injury no.3 has not been explained which is stab wound.

3. Learned Private Counsel for the complainant contended that there was motive on the part of the applicant and all the accused persons have fired shot and thereafter co-accuse

4. Learned A.G.A. has supported the same facts.

5. The main allegation is against the co-accused Harish Chandra and case of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused Harish Chandra. Applicant is in jail since 5.5.2010.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Let the applicant Ramesh involved in Case Crime No. 776 of 2010, under Sections302 IPC Police Station Hasanpur District J.P. Nagar is released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial