Harendra v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The court considered a bail application by the brother of an accused in a FIR alleging attempt to rape and subsequent retaliatory arson leading to death. The applicant claimed false implication and alleged suicide. Despite co-accused having been granted bail, the court rejected the application due to the brutality of the crime and fear of misuse of liberty without deciding on merits.
What did the court decide?
The bail prayer of the applicant is rejected, and he remains in custody.
What the court decided
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5302 of 2019
Applicant :- Harendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated being brother of Keshav; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 7.3.2016 at 11:10 p.m. by Smt. Sudha, mother of deceased Km. Priya, on 5.3.2016 Keshav Chaudhary, brother of applicant attempted rape on Km. Priya and upon outraging her modesty beaten her, of which case was filed and Keshav Chaudhary was sent to prison and on 7.3.2016 at 4:30 p.m. when Km. Priya was sitting on ground floor of her house and her elder sister was on roof, suddenly Harendra, Harikesh, Preeti, Kiran etc. feeling annoyed with the case filed against Keshav Chaudhary entered her house and threatening Km. Priya that she will not give statement before Court, they poured kerosene on her and put her on fire, upon which she sustained grievous burn injuries and when upon hue and cries, neighbours arrived, accused fled away; that due to above burn injuries Km. Priya died on 9.3.2016 and her post mortem report states that her death did take place due to shock and septicaemia, as result of 75% ante mortem burn injuries; that deceased in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. also included Smt. Kamlesh and in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. did not mention name of Jagdish; that in F.I.R. as well as in statement of deceased, common and general role of pouring kerosene and putting her to fire has been assigned to all the accused-persons; that during trial Smt. Sudha Devi, first informant, who is not eye witness of incident, has been examined apart from whom Lal Kishore, Rajani Saraswat and Moni @ Manish Chaudhary have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4; that from the statements of above witnesses, it is clear that Km. Priya attempted suicide by pouring kerosene and putting her on fire; that applicant did not enter in house of first informant and neither he poured kerosene on deceased nor put her on fire; that it is wrong to say that Keshav Chaudhary attempted rape on deceased or outraged her modesty, rather the
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the applicant should be allowed considering the nature of offences and severity of punishment.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on grounds of parity with other co-accused.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Harendra
Coram
Harsh Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/5302/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court