ATMARAM versus STATE OF U.P.

ATMARAM versus STATE OF U.P.

The High Court erred in granting bail to Respondent no.2 and Rafal Singh, given their criminal antecedents and alleged intimidation of witnesses; bail is cancelled and accused to be taken into custody. In respect of Shashpal and Hanish, bail not interfered with due to absence of criminal antecedents or alleged intimidation.

Parties
Appellant: Atmaram; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent No.2: Kunwar Singh; Co Accused/respondent: Rafal Singh ('R'); Co Accused/respondent: Shashpal ('S'); Co Accused/respondent: Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish ('H'); Co Accused: Pillu @ Ravindra; Co Accused: Issam Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal Against Bail Orders
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; bail orders set aside in part
Legal Topics
Bail, Assault, Murder, Intimidation of Witnesses
Criminal Law Bail Assault Murder Intimidation of Witnesses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atmaram

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Kunwar Singh

Respondent No.2

Rafal Singh ('R')

Co Accused/respondent

Shashpal ('S')

Co Accused/respondent

Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish ('H')

Co Accused/respondent

Pillu @ Ravindra

Co Accused

Issam Singh

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal Against Bail Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to Respondent no.2 (Kunwar Singh) and co-accused despite their criminal antecedents and alleged intimidation of witnesses.
  2. 2 Whether bail granted to other co-accused should be interfered with given the prosecution's allegations and criminal history.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in granting bail to Respondent no.2 and Rafal Singh, given their criminal antecedents and alleged intimidation of witnesses; bail is cancelled and accused to be taken into custody. In respect of Shashpal and Hanish, bail not interfered with due to absence of criminal antecedents or alleged intimidation.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; bail orders set aside in part

Orders

  • Bail of Respondent no.2 (Kunwar Singh) cancelled; bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged; respondent to be taken into custody forthwith.
  • Bail of Rafal Singh ('R') cancelled; bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged; respondent to be taken into custody forthwith.