Allowed

Prashant Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC20 Oct 2010BA1/910/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of the accused, Prashant Kumar, in a case concerning Sections 307 and 504 IPC. The Court held that the applicant deserves bail at the current stage, noting the existence of a cross case and injuries on both sides without expressing an opinion on final merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the CJM, Udham Singh Nagar.

Prashant Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Bail and Remand | Uttarakhand HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

¶2

Dated: Nainital: the 20^th day of October, 2010 1^st Bail application No. 910 of 2010 Order on the bail application of accused

¶3

CRIMINAL SIDE Prashant Kumar … Applicant

¶4

¶5

State of Uttarakhand … Opposite Party

¶6

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2010 Under Sections 307 and 504 of I.P.C. Police Station Jaspur District Udham Singh Nagar

¶7

By the court

¶8

Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J.

¶9

Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. G.A. for the State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused/applicant has argued that as per the prosecution case on the exhortation of Beer Singh, Prashant Kumar (co-accused) caused firearm injury upon Rajendra Pratap Singh on 14.08.2010 at 08:30 a.m. and F.I.R. was lodged on the same day by Mahendra Pratap Singh. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was a cross case and Smt. Devwati also lodged a F.I.R. against Rajendra Pratap Singh, Ved Prakash, Vikey @ Narendra and Guddu; the case was registered against them under Sections 307, 452, 354, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. and this F.I.R. was lodged on the same day i.e. 14.08.2010 at 05:15 p.m. He has further argued that F.I.R. was lodged by both the parties. He has also argued that Devwati has received ten injuries and her injury report has been filed as annexure 4 to the bail application. He further submitted that the injuries are on both the sides and at this stage it cannot be ascertained as to which of the parties is aggressor.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the papers available on record and without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

¶12

Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Udham Singh Nagar.

¶13

Bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶14

ASWAL

¶15

(Dharam Veer, J.)

¶16

20.10.2010

Prashant Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raman Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chirag Jain Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sunita Rani Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Akash Tamta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abhay Kumar Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Zulfiqar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand