Dismissed¶13

Chandra Shekhar Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023BAIL/24611/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; Section 439 CrPC; Section 302 I.P.C. murder; Case Crime No. 438 of 2020; S.T. No. 673/2021; Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur; FIR by Khem Chandra Rajpoot; deceased Pintu; two eyewitnesses (Babloo @ Balendra and Satish); recovery of kulhadi on pointing out of applicant; 04 incised wounds; applicant in jail since 21.09.2020; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Samit Gopal, J.; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:133409; order date 6.7.2023.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the record, the Court found that there are two eyewitnesses of the incident who saw the applicant assaulting the deceased, and that a kulhadi was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. ¶12

Chandra Shekhar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133409

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24611 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Prasad Yadav,Kamta Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahesh Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Chandra Shekhar Rajpoot , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No. 673/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 438 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur.

¶8

The first information report of the present case was lodged on 21.09.2020 by Khem Chandra Rajpoot against the applicant alleging therein that his younger son Pintu has a shop of mobile at the Dhanauri Bus stand near the general merchant shop of Ram Dayal. Yesterday Ram Dayal and Chandra Shekhar Rajput had some quarrel between them. On the day of the incident at about 9 pm his son after having his dinner told that he is going to the shop to sleep. In the night someone informed his elder son Mangal Singh that someone has murdered Pintu Singh. His son was found dead on a plank in front of the shop. Babloo @ Balendra and Satish were present there who told him that the deceased was sleeping between them and at about 12 midnight Chandra Shekhar Rajpoot committed the murder.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the present incident is a night incident. There is no source of light mentioned. It is further argued that the presence of the alleged two eye-witnesses namely Babloo @ Balendra and Satish at the place of occurrence is highly disputed. It is argued that the applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that although the police has shown the recovery of an axe on the pointing out of the applicant but the said recovery is a false and a planted recovery. It is argued that

¶10

as a matter of fact, the deceased was murdered by someone in the night and since the applicant had a fight previously with him he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.09.2020.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the sole accused named in the first information report. There are two eye-witnesses of the incident. There is recovery of the alleged weapon on the pointing out of the applicant. The postmortem examination report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution version since the deceased was found to have received 04 incised wounds on his body and the cause of death has been opined as shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injury. It is argued that as such the applicant is involved in the present case and the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶12

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there are two eyewitnesses of the incident who have seen the applicant assaulting the deceased. There is recovery of a kulhadi on the pointing out of the applicant. The deceased was found to have received 04 incised wounds on his body.

¶13