Allowed

Chhatrapati Kesarwani v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2021BAIL/5513/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Chhatradhari Kesarwani, first correcting his name in the cause title. The court granted bail by personal bond and two sureties, operating under the reformative theory of punishment and Article 21 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount, with conditions of attending trial, not tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities.

Chhatrapati Kesarwani Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case : - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5513 of 2021 Applicant :- Chhatradhari Kesarwani Opposite Party : - State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant : - Manav Chaurasia,Anil Kumar Bind,Manphool Singh Gaur,Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Birendra Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶4

Learned Counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that in the bail rejection order of the Court below the name of the applicant is Chhatradhari Kesarwani but in the bail application filed before this Court the name of the applicant has wrongly been mentioned as Chatrapati Kesarwani. In the cause title also the same name has been mentioned by the office. He further makes a request to permit him to correct the same and the office may be directed to incorporate it in the cause title.

¶5

In view of the above, learned Counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the name of the applicant in the bail application as Chhatradhari Kesarwani in place of Chhatrapati Kesarwani and the office is directed to correct the cause title accordingly.

¶6

Heard Sri K.C. Pandey and Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocates holding brief of Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.297 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Charwa, District Kaushambi during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R., which was lodged against four accused persons including the applicant with the allegation that the applicant and other accused persons fired from their licensed gun and pistol as a result thereof the brother and son of the informant got injured. It is further contended that all three accused persons have already been granted bail by the lower court. It is next contended that there is a firearm wound of 0.3 cm size below the left eye of the injured Mohit Dubey and there is a firearm wound over right side of the back and the chest of Diwakar Dubey. Both the injuries sustained by the injured are not on vital parts. Lastly it is contended that the applicant is in jail since 23.11.2020 having no criminal history to his credit as stated in paragraph no.12 of the affidavit filed along with the bail application and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that as per statement of the injured the main role of firing is assigned to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge,

¶11

¶12

reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant, Chhatradhari Kesarwani involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶15

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶16

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

Order Date : - 7.10.2021 S.P.

¶22

Chhatrapati Kesarwani v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapati Kesarwani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Umakant Vs State of U.P.

Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Vs State of U.P.

Jagat Singh @ Jaggi Vs Union of India

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.