SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 1911

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
RAHUL PRASAD SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr J.M. Akbar, Advocate.
Mr Rajat Katyal, APP.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

CRL.M.A. 10459/2015 (Delay in re-filing)

The delay in re-filing is condoned.

CRL.M.A. 10460/2015 (Exemption)

Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of accordingly.


BAIL APPLN. 1458/2015

1. The present is an application under Section 439 CrPC, 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR No.218/2012 under Section 302/392/394/411/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station-Timar Pur.

2. The accused has been in judicial custody since 03.10.2012 and only 17 witnesses out of the total of 41 witnesses have been examined during the trial. It is also noticed that two public witnesses are yet to be examined.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states that he has been implicated in the present case on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement and that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant. It is also urged on behalf of counsel for the applicant that the IO in the subject case has not produced any cogent material to show that he enquired about the commission of the subject offence from the neighbours of the deceased victim. It is also urged on behalf of counsel for the applicant that the fingerprints













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top