Allowed

Devershi Alias Chanu Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022/9583/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application in a murder and affray case. The court noted that while serious allegations of murder existed, specific roles for the applicant were not attributed, no incriminating articles were recovered, and co-accused with similar roles were already released on bail. Considering the totality of facts and precedent, bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in the like amount.

Devershi Alias Chanu Shukla Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9583 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Devershi Alias Chanu Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Dharm Trivedi,Dr. Pooja Singh,Rajiva Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Yadav,Ruby Chaudhary

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant/Devershi @ Chanu Shukla, Ms. Ruby Chaudhary, learned counsel for the first informant and Mr. Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Devershi @ Chanu Shukla under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 832 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 302, 506 IPC, Police Station Lakhimpur Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 20.07.2022, which has been lodged against the applicant and other three named persons and unknown persons by the brother of the deceased under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 304 I.P.C. stating that on 19.07.2022 at 9.00 p.m. some altercation took place between the friends of younger brother of the first informant and one Rajat Rastogi. After that Rajat Rastogi complained to the present applicant about the altercation and the applicant called his uncle Anoop Shukla and Brijesh Shukla and other companions. After that the applicant and other co-accused persons committed marpeet by kicks and fists to the younger brother of the first informant. He fell down and

¶8

thereafter they fled away. The injured was took to trauma centre where he was declared dead.

¶9

After lodging of first information report inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 20.07.2022 at 9.15 hrs. As per inquest report no visible injury was found on the person of the deceased. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 20.07.2022 at 1.20 p.m. As per postmortem report three injuries were found on the person of the deceased which are (i) contusion 8 cm x 6 cm over back of abdomen on right side, (ii) multiple contusion in an area of 30 cm x 20 cm over front and back of right eye and just above right knee and (iii) contusion 6 cm x 5 cm over both sides of scrotum. Two injured persons Mohd. Suhail and Mohd. Naeem have also sustained injuries of contusion. The investigation is going on. The applicant was arrested on 20.07.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that general allegations of committing marpeet by kicks and fists have been assigned to the present applicant and other co-accused persons and unknown persons. It is further submitted that no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the accused applicant. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 304 I.P.C. It is further submitted that co-accused Anoop Shukla and Brijesh Shukla having similar role have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10342 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Bail

¶11

Application No.9795 of 2022 on 30.08.2022 and 12.09.2022 respectively. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 20.07.2022.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

After considering the facts of the present case, it prima facie appears that;

¶14

(a) as per postmortem report two fatal injuries were found on the person of the deceased as contusion 8 cm x 6 cm over back of abdomen on right side and a contusion is found on both sides of scrotum,

¶15

(b) general allegation of marpeet has been assigned to the present applicant,

¶16

¶17

(d) no incriminating article has been found from the possession of the accused applicant,

¶18

(e) co-accused persons having similar roles have been enlarged on bail by this Court,

¶19

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the

¶20

character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶21

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind and the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let applicant, Devershi @ Chanu Shukla be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening

¶26

of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶29

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶31

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶32

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶33

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

¶34

Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶35

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.

¶36

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

¶37

Order Date :- 21.9.2022 Ram.

¶38

Digitally signed by RAM SINGH Date: 2022.09.23 16:47:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devershi Alias Chanu Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devershi Alias Chanu Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Faruk Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Moorti Verma @ Pooja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Sahai Verma Vs State of U.P. through Secretary,Home,Civil Secretariat,Lko

Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.