Dismissed

Rajeev Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2021CRLA/1682/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 1682 of 2020, the court dismissed the appellant's challenge to the rejection of bail applications in a case involving attempted murder and SC/ST offences. Upholding the lower court's order, the judge held that evidence supported the assignment of a role to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of the appellant is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.

Rajeev Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1682 of 2020 Appellant :- Rajeev Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Rajeev Chaudhary with a prayer to set aside the judgment and orders dated 27.02.2020 and 06.03.2020, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly, in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 267 of 2020 and 731 of 2020 respectively, arising out of Case Crime No. 908 of 2019, under Sections 307, 120B/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Bahedi, District Bareilly.

¶6

The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the same is arbitrary and bad in the eye of law and has been passed without application of judicial mind. The first information report is delayed and there is no explanation of said delay. The appellant has been falsely implicated on the ground of political rivalry. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant. He has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi. The learned Special Judge without considering the material facts has rejected the bail application and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶7

The first information version is that the incident took place on 27.11.2019 at some time and on the same day, the first information report has been lodged in which four accused persons have been named. The allegation is that the informant was going by her scooty. At Jaju Nagar, the accused persons surrounded her by two motorcycles and in order to kill her, started firing. She sustained two fire arm injuries and fell down. The first information report was lodged and the injured was taken to the hospital for treatment. Her treatment continued for about two months.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has been in jail from the last about 20 months. He has

¶9

been wrongly assigned role of causing injuries. Submission is that the other co-accused persons have already been released on bail. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused-appellant has no criminal history and the court below has illegally rejected the bail application of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 have vehemently opposed the the prayer and have submitted that the during investigation, the role of causing fire arm injuries have been assigned on the appellant, therefore, there is no illegality in the bail rejection order. Further submission is that the learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Considered the submissions of both the sides, the evidence which was collected during investigation goes to show that fire arm injuries were caused by the appellant. Two entry wounds of fire arm have been found on the body of the injured and the injuries are on vital party of the body. The injured was under treatment for about two months. There is statement of the injured and other witnesses which were recorded by the I.O. and they have supported the first information report version and have stated that the fire arm injuries were caused by the appellant. The offence has been committed by the appellant against a woman who belongs to SC community and as such, the offence becomes more serious. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the bail application of the appellant is rejected .

¶13

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.8.2021 sailesh

Rajeev Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Aditya Singh @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shafeek Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav @ Son Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another