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

1999 Supreme(All) 284

M.L.SINGHAL
YUNIS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMIT KUMAR, Jagdish Singh Sengar

M. L. SINGHAL, J.

( 1 ) THE two accused-applicants, namely, Yunis, son of Noora and Haroon, son of Nazir have applied for bail under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 429/120-B, I. P. C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused-applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate, and Shri Ram Shiromani Shukla, learned Counsel for the complainant.

( 3 ) THE prosecution story as embedded in the F. I. R. is that the deceased Yakeenuddin Qureshi and the co-accused Bhuggal were on an inimical terms, cases in Criminal Courts were pending between the parties. The co-accused Bhuggal and others had made efforts for the arrest of the deceased Yakeenuddin Qureshi, but the High Court had put embargo on the arrest of the deceased, this had been felt by the co-accused Bhuggal and others. On 29-1-1997 one day before the occurrence, the co-accused Bhuggal had told the informant (brother of the deceased) that he had saved the deceased from the High Court but he would not be able to save him from the accused persons. On 30-1-1997 at about 6. 30 a. m. the deceased and the informant when came out of the mosque after offering prayers, the seven accused








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