Dismissed

Chhotelal @ Guddu Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 May 2019BAIL/46467/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application rejected. The applicant was assigned a specific role in an incident involving three deaths under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The court held that the seriousness of the allegations and gravity of the offence preclude bail, despite cross FIRs and bail for co-accused on different grounds.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected based on assigned role in firing, deaths involved, and gravity of offence.

Chhotelal @ Guddu Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46467 of 2018

¶4

Applicant :- Chhotelal @ Guddu Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Tiwari,Sri O.P. Singh Sr. Adv.,Sushil Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Ranjan Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard Sri O. P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, Sri Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Yogeshwar Rai, learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 0739 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 IPC and section 25/30 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

I have perused the FIR as well as the order by means of which the bail application has been rejected by the court below.

¶9

The contention of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant is that there are cross FIRs; both sides have received injuries; from the side of informant three persons have received injuries which have not been explained and that two of the accused, namely, Ram Pyare and Surendra Yadav have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court; reliance has been placed upon the document, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 25 to the bail application, which is a letter of intent in support of the contention that there was no occasion for the applicant to engage in an incident as has been alleged in the FIR itself. It has also been contended that in both the cross cases the chargesheet have been filed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that though two of the co-accused, namely, Ram Pyare and Surendra Yadav have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court, but the perusal of the order shows that co-accused Ram Pyare was granted bail on account of his medical ailment and other coaccused Surendra Yadav was granted bail because there was no assignment of any specific role of firing to co-accused Surendra Yadav. They further opposed the bail application with the

¶11

contention that the applicant has been named in the FIR and specific role of firing has been assigned to the applicant; there is a recovery of weapon from the applicant; two of the coaccused are still absconding. They further contended that it is a broad day light incident in which three persons have been shot dead and four persons are seriously injured and merely on account of cross FIRs, the applicant is not entitled to grant of any indulgence of this Court.

¶12

Even though the applicant had filed a writ petition before this Court for fair investigation in which an order was passed and subsequently as the order was not complied with a contempt petition was filed before this Court being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2336 of 2019. I have perused the said order.

¶13

Looking to the facts that the applicant has been assigned a specific role of firing in which three persons have been shot dead in a broad day light incident and also looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶14

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

¶15

Order Date :- .05.2019 Kuldeep

Chhotelal @ Guddu Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotelal @ Guddu Pandey 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

Ram Kailash Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Shashank Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sheshnath Goand Vs State of U.P.

Nawab Vs State of U.P.