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

1994 Supreme(All) 147

K.C.BHARGAVA
VIKRAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUN SINHA, M.K.NIGAM, S.P.PANDEY, SATENDRA SINGH,

K. C. BHARGAVA, J.

This bail application has been moved by one Vikram who has been an accused in offences punishable under Section 307/324/302, I. P. C. Police Station. Ghazipur District Lucknow.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case provisions of Section 50 (1) of Cr. P. C. and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India have not been followed inas much as the grounds and the full particulars of the offences were not disclosed to him at the time of his arrest. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate the particulars of offences were indicated to the petitioner at the time of arrest which fact is corroborated by entry in the general diary and in the affidavit of the arresting officer. A perusal of file will go to show that accused Vikram was arrested on 4-5-1993. Annexuie-1 to the bail application is the F. I. R. which has been lodged against the applicant. Annexure-2 is the copy of recovery memo. The incident is all





























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