Chetan @ Manoj v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the High Court granted bail noting lack of FIR nomenclature, unsatisfactory extra-judicial confession, and no prior criminal record.
What did the court decide?
Release on bail on personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Dated: Nainital the July 5, 2006 Criminal Bail Application No. 577 of 2006 Order on the bail application of accused
CRIMINAL SIDE
Chetan @ Manoj S/o Gyan Das R/o Mau Khurd P.S. Baloni District Bagpat (U.P.) ….Applicant Versus
State of Uttaranchal …Opposite Party
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2004 Under Section 302 of I.P.C. P.S. Jhabreda District Haridwar
By the court
Hon'ble B.C. Kandpal, J.
The applicant has applied for bail in case crime No. 90 of 2004 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Jhabreda District Haridwar.
Heard Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The applicant is not named in the First Information Report. However, the only evidence against the applicant is that of extra judicial confession. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the applicant.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Chetan @ Manoj
- respondent
State of Uttaranchal
Coram
B.C. Kandpal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Uttarakhand HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- BA1/577/2006
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court