K.C.BHARGAVA, R.P.NIGAM
LALLU YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not committed any offence as mentioned in the F. I. R. A perusal of the F. I. R. will go to show that during the course of investiga tion of crime No. 418/96 under Section 223/224/120-R of I. P. C, it has come in the knowledge that constable No. 2335 Videsh Kumar, who was working in the lock up at Collectorate, Lucknow colluded with under trial Surajpal Yadav and the petitioner Lallu Yadav and in order to achieve the criminal intention they got prepared fake requisitions for production of the petitioner in the Court of C. J. M. , Lucknow on 5-10-96, 14-10-996, 15-10-96, 16-10-96, 19-10-96, 23-10-96, 30-10-96 and 31-10-96 when no such dates were feed in the case. In this way, they conspired to achieve unlawful gain and have thus committed the offences under the sections mentioned above.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it has
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.