Allowed

Moolchandra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2022BAIL/2822/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court considered allegations of grievous injuries and the applicant's lack of criminal history. Citing jail overcrowding due to the pandemic, the court held this as a fit case for bail, allowing it on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties each with conditions against tampering with evidence and committing new crimes.

Moolchandra Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2822 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Moolchandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,Shailesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri C.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Moolchandra for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.375 of 2021 under Sections 308, 323, 336 I.P.C, registered at Police StationKotwali Orai, District- Jalaun.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 15.12.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that initially, an NCR was lodged being NCR No. 0120 of 2021 on 31.5.2021 against the applicant showing the incident on 31.5.2021 at 9:00 p.m, wherein the father of the complainant being one Sri Gaya Prasad son of Ram Gopal was sitting in front of his house and the accused therein inclusive of the applicant along with Neelam and his son Chhote administered beating upon the father of the complainant, pursuant whereof, he sustained grievous injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure-2 page-16 of the typed copy of the medico legal examination report, wherein the nature of injuries are shown to be simple.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards page-19 of the bail application so as to contend that in the CT Scan of brain, the following was observed:-

¶10

" Depressed fracture is seen in the left parietal bone.

¶11

No other significant abnormality is seen "

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the FIR so sought to be lodged, which became the basis for putting the criminal proceeding against the applicant in motion emanating the FIR no.0375 at P.S. Kotwali Orai, Jalaun dated 2.6.2021 at 20:07 hours under Sections 323, 336, 308 IPC with relation to the offences so

¶13

sought to be shown to have occurred on 31.5.2021, general role has been assigned to three accused referred to above inclusive of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has next contended that even from the statement of the complainant under Section 161 of the CrPC, which is Annexure-6, at page35 of the paper book, general role has been assigned and no specific role has been assigned. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case in question and further insertion of the sections has been purposely made just in order to give colour. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph-16 of the paper book so as to contend that applicant applicant does not possess any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 9.12.2021. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty. He be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Countering the said submission, learned A.G.A, has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has not only named by name in the NCR, but also in the FIR. From the perusal of the Medico Legal Examination, grievous injuries have been shown to have sustained by the father of the complainant. However, learned A.G.A, could not dispute the fact that the allegations contained in the FIR as well as the statement of injured, is general in nature and not specific and further that the applicant does not possess any criminal history.

¶15

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as general role has been assigned to the applicant and the applicant possesses no criminal history as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶16

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation ( Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India ). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶17

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Moolchandra involved in aforesaid crime be

¶19

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶20

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

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

¶23

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

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

¶26

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶27

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶28

Order Date :- 7.2.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶29

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.02.10 13:52:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Moolchandra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moolchandra 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

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rahul @ Montu Vs State of U.P.

Omkar Vs State of U.P.

Keshav Dev Lavaniya Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.