Allowed

Chhotelal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2019CRLA/2452/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Court allowed the appellant's challenge to an order rejecting bail. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail and set aside the lower court's order. The appellant was released on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, and the order refusing bail is set aside.

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2452 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Chhotelal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Lalji Yadav,Yashpal Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur, in Bail Application No.777 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 394, 324, 307, 308, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(d)(dh) & 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act in Case Crime No.558 of 2018, State Vs. Chhotelal, P.S. Pipraich District Gorakhpur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶7

As per first information report version, thirteen named persons and thirty unknown persons are said to have assaulted on the complainant's side and three accused, Chhotey Lal, Vijay and Manish were alleged to have armed with sharp-edged weapons and they have assaulted the complainant and his family members, in which one Shiv Prasad received the injuries and later on, Shiv Prasad succumbed to the injuries during treatment.

¶8

As per post-mortem report, the deceased, Shiv Prasad had received thee injuries: the injury report no.1 is stitched wound of 10 cm. over frontal area at the top of head vertical in position, swelling present around, which was examined on 18.12.2018 at 9.25 a.m.; the injury no.2 is contusion over left thigh on antero-lateral and injury no.3 is multiple abraided wound on left leg on antero-lateral aspect. Doctor opined that all the injuries are caused by hard and blunt object. The injury of Hari Ram is stitched wound of 12 cm. over frontal aspect of head vertical in position; the injury no.2 is abraded contusion over knee and leg. Doctor opined that all the injuries are caused by hard and blunt object and the injury report of Anita, Santosh and Chhaya shows only the complaint of pain.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submitted that the first information report has mentioned that there was a marriage on 22.04.2018 and there a dispute arose over sitting on cot and chairs. He submitted that as per the first information report thirteen persons were named in the first information report and thirty unknown persons, are alleged to have assaulted the complainant's side but only one grievous injury was received by the deceased, Shiv Prasad. He further submitted that there was no intention to commit the murder on the part of the accused persons as only one grievous injury was caused to the deceased, Shiv Prasad and no other person of the complainant's side had received any grievous injury in the offence committed by the accused persons. He submitted that general allegation has been assigned against all the accused persons. He further submitted that there is no whisper about

¶10

the injury that who has caused the sharp edged injuries. He further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 24.12.2018 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A., for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the aforementioned order is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant-applicant Chhotelal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.5.2019

¶15

R./

Chhotelal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotelal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanraj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kunwar Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Moti Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra @ Dhannoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another