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.

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

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

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 03, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912293

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. - 20204 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) - Sections 302, 201, 376, 511, 404

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohan.

Advocate V.S. Parmar. Adv.

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 201, 376, 511, 404

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, sri rk gupta, 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 the applicant is not in the fir and thereafter allegation has been made against nirdosh and two other co-accused and police arrested them. there is no recovery of any incriminating article from possession of the applicant. the only evidence against the applicant is statement of witness ravindra who stated that applicant and two other were coming out of khandahar hurriedly and except this there is nothing against the applicant to connect with the murder of the deceased. 3. learned counsel for the complainant contended that the applicant was involved in committing the murder of the deceased and there is last seen evidence against him. he along with other co-accused attempted to rape the deceased and committed murder. 4. learned a.g.a. supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant 5. call details of nirdosh co-accused were taken. there is recovery of mobile from possession of co-accused. the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 15.4.2010. distinguishing the case of the applicant to other co-accused nirdosh and ghanpat, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment incase of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. let the applicant mohan involved in case crime no. 363 of 2010 under sections 302, 201, 376, 511, 404 ipc police station jariya, district hamirpur be 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, Sri RK Gupta, 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 the applicant is not in the FIR and thereafter allegation has been made against Nirdosh and two other co-accused and Police arrested them. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from possession of the applicant. The only evidence against the applicant is statement of witness Ravindra who stated that applicant and two other were coming out of Khandahar hurriedly and except this there is nothing against the applicant to connect with the murder of the deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the applicant was involved in committing the murder of the deceased and there is last seen evidence against him. He along with other co-accused attempted to rape the deceased and committed murder.

4. Learned A.G.A. supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant

5. Call details of Nirdosh co-accused were taken. There is recovery of mobile from possession of co-accused. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 15.4.2010. Distinguishing the case of the applicant to other co-accused Nirdosh and Ghanpat, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment incase of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Let the applicant Mohan involved in Case Crime No. 363 of 2010 under Sections 302, 201, 376, 511, 404 IPC Police Station Jariya, District Hamirpur be 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