CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Shali Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 9 January 2000 · Citation: (2000) 01 AHC CK 0095

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.K.Rathi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25 · Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1959 — Section 12, 14 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 147, 148, 149, 307
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 858 of 2000
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 363 words

B.K. Rathi, J.—The applicant moved an application for release of rifle alleged to have been recovered from the possession of accused Ghan Shyam in Crime No. 93 of 1996 under Sections 147,148,149 and 307, IPC and Section 12/14 DAA Act and Section 25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Kamasin regarding which S.T No. 100 of 1996 is pending before the Special Judge (S.C./S.T Act), Banda. The application for release of rifle has been rejected by an order dated 2222000 by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T Act). Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been preferred.

2.

I have heard Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the AGA, though no counteraffidavit has been filed in spite of opportunity.

3.

It is admitted that the applicant is not the accused in this case, who is the father of the accused. It is also admitted that the applicant is a valid licence holder of the rifle. The application has been rejected on the ground that it is a case property and maybe required during trial.

4.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that he is not an accused in this case. That the trial is at the stage of charge and the rifle is lying in the Malkhana. It is contended that it was taken from the house of the applicant. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that his application for release of rifle was rejected, but the learned Special Judge (D.A.A.) Banda allowed the application for release of another rifle moved by Bhanu Pratap Singh, which order has been produced. It is contended that applicant and Bhanu Pratap Singh are placed in the similar circumstance and both the rifles were recovered in the same transaction.

5.

Considering the circumstances of the case that the applicant is not an accused in this case, the revision is allowed. It is ordered that the rifle of the applicant shall be released in his favour immediately, provided the applicant possesses a valid licence, on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 10,000/ and undertaking to produce the rifle as and when required by the Court during trial.

Revision allowed.