Allowed

Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2020BAIL/4679/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta in a murder and attempt to commit rape case as the author of the fatal injury was unknown and he was not named in the FIR, imposing strict conditions on his release.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence and presence in court.

Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4679 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Deenanath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 862 of 2019, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C. and 3(2) (v) S.C. / S.T. Act, registered at P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that occurrence in the present matter is alleged to have taken place on 28.10.2019 at about 22:00 hrs for which an F.I.R was lodged on 29.10.2019 at about 11:01 a.m. against unknown persons. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 8 kms. only. The delay in lodging of the same is too much and unexplained. The version in the F.I.R as coming forward is that Roshni @ Rashmi the daughter of the first informant who is the deceased was sleeping in the house after having dinner, she received some telephone call on her mobile at about 10:00 p.m. after which she went out of the house for the call of nature. When Ranjeet the son of the first informant came back to house he did not find the deceased on her bed and then he woke other family members on which a search was conducted and the girl was found in an injured condition lying near the boundary wall of the Panchyat Ghar. It has further been mentioned in the F.I.R that the deceased was having a mobile no. 7237884965 which has been taken by the unknown persons who have committed the incident. The daughter of the first informant who is the deceased is aged about 21 years. If has further been stated that on 28.10.2019 Rishi Kumar was interrogated by the Investigating Officer who gave some clue about the incident and stated that his mobile was given to the present applicant as there were some dues on him on which the applicant was searched for but could not be found and subsequently, he was arrested on the same day and he gave his confessional statement to the police mentioning therein that the deceased had called on the mobile which was in his possession & belonging to Rishi Kumar. The said document is Annexure- 4 to the affidavit.

¶8

Subsequently, it is alleged that certain recoveries have been done on 30.10.2019. The recovery memo being Annexure- 7 to the affidavit and on the pointing out of the applicant the police has recovered some clothes buried in a polythene pack behind a hotel which belonged to the applicant himself which are said to have been worn by him at the time of occurrence had blood stains which were subsequently washed by the applicant, a mobile phone without sim and a farsa allegedly used in the incident.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the articles as recovered are not incriminating by any stretch of implication as the clothes are of the applicant himself, the mobile phone was not in the name of the applicant or deceased and cannot be connected with the incident, the farsa as recovered does not give any lead as to have been used in the incident and the same is without any corroboration. He further argues that the mater is under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act also but since the same is of Kanpur Dehat being a Dacoity Affected Area the same was decided by the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Kanpur Dehat and the restrictions as in the S.C. / S.T. Act would not apply to the present matter. The same has been dealt with by the Court below in the order dated 03.12.2019 by which the bail application of the applicant has been rejected. It has further been reported that the applicant has been involved in two other cases being Case Crime No. 863 of 2019 under Section 224 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 864 of 2019 under the Arms Act which have been registered after the present F.I.R at the same Police Station. He claims innocence and argues the the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in jail since 29.10.2019 having no previous criminal history.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A on the other hand opposing the prayer for bail argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R but the information as received from Rishi Kumar coupled with the recoveries of the articles on the pointing out of the applicant leave no doubt of the applicant being involved in the present matter, but could not dispute the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

After having heard the learned learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A and looking to the facts that the deceased received one injury only which proved fatal and the other injuries received by the other injured persons are simple in nature and the author of the fatal injury is not known, I find it a fit case for granting bail, let the applicant, Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on

¶12

furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶17

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶21

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant @ Chunchun Gupta 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

Jeetu Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Prasad Agrahari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaku Alias Parikshit Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Deepak @ Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kamal and 02 Others Vs State of U.P.

Megh Singh Vs State of U.P.