Allowed

Chhote Lal Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2018BAIL/7086/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7086 of 2018, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, Chhote Lal Prajapati, charged with murder and other offences. The court relied on the fact that he had been in custody for over a year and his co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, and complying with conditions to not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7086 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Chhote Lal Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Tripathi,Dharm Singh Parmar,Prem Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against two accused persons, namely Anil Kumar @ Babli Shivhare and Chhotey Lal Prajapati alleging that on 26.10.2017 they assaulted the daughter of the complainant by dragging from Tempo, hence she received injuries and resultantly died.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail sine 27.10.2017 (more than one year and one month); criminal history of two cases has been properly explained. Co-accused namely Anil Kumar @ Babali Shivhare has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7091 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to statement of doctor, the injuries received by the daughter of the complainant are not caused by the applicant. One day the applicant had lodged F.I.R. against the complainant hence he has been falsely implicated. According to statement of Tempo driver Atul, the injured has received injury accidentally; there was no intention or knowledge to kill the deceased; all injuries of injured are abrasions only; there is no independent witness and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

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 criminal history has been explained.

¶10

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

¶11

allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Chhote Lal Prajapati involved in Case Crime No. 187 of 2017, under Section 304, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Sisolar, District-Hamirpur 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 6.12.2018

¶20

A. Singh

Chhote Lal Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhote Lal Prajapati 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

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Prateek @ Chintoo Vs State of U.P.

Hassan Alias Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Haneef Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Vs State of U.P.

Mintu Masala Vs State of U.P.