Allowed

Chhotey Lal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018BAIL/20194/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for Chhotey Lal accused of offences under IPC. Court noted general allegations, lack of specific role assignment, and applicant's clean record as factors for granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including appearance in court and non-tampering with evidence.

Chhotey Lal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20194 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Chhotey Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Mayank Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today by private opposite party is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Mayank Mishra, brief holder for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 1.11.2017 against eight accused persons, namely Sriram, Devkumar, Chandrabhawan, Rajabhaiya, Chotelal, Lalbua, Sumant and Maharaj alleging that on 29.10.2017 they assaulted Ramkhilawan, Ramkaran, Rajkaran, Rajabeti and Phool Kumari. Ramkhilawan and Rajkaran received serious injuries. Rajkaran died on 31.10.2017. Injuries of other injured are simple in nature.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future. It is not clear form the prosecution case, who is the author of said injury due to which he died. There are general allegations against all accused persons. No specific role was assigned to any accused persons. F.I.R. was lodged after two days of incident without explaining any delay. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 4.11.2017 (more than one year and one month) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that charge has not been framed till today. No one has appeared from the side of applicant in trial court.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of

¶12

custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Chhotey Lal involved in Case Crime No. 245 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 304 IPC, Police Station Bisanda, District Banda be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶14

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is expected from the trial below to decide this case under Section 309 Cr.P.C., expeditiously.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.12.2018 A. Singh

Chhotey Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotey Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Haneef Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Sarafat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahida Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and Another