ATUL TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
July 22,2014
Atul Tripathi
Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. And Anr.
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
OMPRAKASH SAHNI VS. JAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-8] [REFERRED TO]KULDEEP SINGH SENGER VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2024-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: NAYAN DAS VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
SIKANDAR KARIM MALEK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-2-236] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH WINDWANI VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-115] [REFERRED TO]
HARE RAM MAHTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
JHANDU @ SUNDAR PASWAN SON OF LATE RAMASHISH PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
IN THE MATTER OF: UTPAL MONDAL VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2017-6-297] [REFERRED TO]
SOMESH CHAURASIA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(SC)-2021-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
SATNARAYAN YADAV @ SATTAN YADAV S/O LATE SHIVJANAM YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE VS. NAYAN DAS & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-143] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE, ARUP KUMAR GHOSH @ ARUP GHOSH VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2016-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
TSERING DORJAY VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2019-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL ANSAL VS. STATE OF NCT [LAWS(DLH)-2022-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RASHID VS. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2019-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
BIRSI DEVI VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
TEEKAM SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-195] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP SINGH KARAYAT VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
AMIR SHEIKH VS. STATEOF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RASHID VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
YUVARAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-378] [REFERRED TO]
CHUNKARI KHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-376] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL GHOSH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-11-121] [REFERRED]
VISMAY AMITBHAI SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-7-194] [REFERRED]
DASHRATH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-144] [REFERRED TO]
SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH MANDAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-5-125] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)At the post conviction stage, whether the appellate court, while considering the release of the convict on bail, should give an opportunity to the public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release where the conviction is on an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for a term not less than ten years, is the issue falling for consideration in these appeals.
(3.)All the private respondents have been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149 read with Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and they have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life with fine. Altogether seven accused have been convicted; however bail is granted only to four.
(2.)At the post conviction stage, whether the appellate court, while considering the release of the convict on bail, should give an opportunity to the public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release where the conviction is on an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for a term not less than ten years, is the issue falling for consideration in these appeals.
(3.)All the private respondents have been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149 read with Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and they have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life with fine. Altogether seven accused have been convicted; however bail is granted only to four.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.