Allowed

Rajendra Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020BAIL/5897/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge permitted bail to the applicant in a murder trial, accepting counsel's arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained without police custody and releasing him on bond with sureties and stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in specified amounts with specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Rajendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5897 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay,Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rajendra Chauhan seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with case crime no.06 of 2018, under Sections 302 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Harraiya, District Basti.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant and his brother Rajesh Chauhan went to the police station and gave an information that they have murdered their parents namely Hiradayram (father) and Smt. Sunita (step mother) with an axe due to a family dispute between them. On that information the police recorded G.D. no.39 at about 9.45 P.M. on 05.01.2018, P.S. Harraiya, District Basti and proceeded to the spot along with the said two persons to find out both the dead-bodies lying there and also one axe present near the dead-bodies. Subsequently the police team returned back to the police station and first information report was lodged on 05.01.2018 at 23.37 hours. by the Sub Inspector Jai Prakash Mishra detailing the said facts and naming the applicant as an accused and his brother Rajesh Chauhan as co-accused. Further proceedings so far as related to the dead-bodies are concerned, it were initiated and processed.

¶8

He further argued that the recovery of the axe which is alleged to be incriminating cannot be recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as at the time of said recovery the said two persons were not in police custody and as such cannot be used against them. He then argues that barring recovery of the axe the next evidence of the prosecution against the applicant is confessional statement recorded before the police after lodging of the first information report which is not admissible in law. The applicant is in jail since 05.01.2018 and has no criminal antecedents as stated in para-28 of the affidavit, therefore, he be

¶9

released on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposes the bail but could not dispute aforesaid arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record without further any comments on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Rajendra Chauhan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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

¶19

applicant.

¶20

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.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.2.2020 Asha

¶23

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Rajendra Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Chauhan 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

Sarvesh Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Kumar @ Lalla Vs State of U.P.

Premchandra Patel Vs State of U.P.

Azad Vs State of U.P.

Bhim Sen Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Sahani Vs State of U.P.