Allowed

Chhabila Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023BAIL/30691/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Chhabila Yadav in a murder case where nine persons were named as accused. Finding that the prosecution did not identify the author of the fatal head injury and considering the applicant's clean antecedents and three months of prior incarceration, the court granted bail imposing standard conditions for attendance and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties under specific conditions restricting adjournments and attendance.

Chhabila Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157220

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30691 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chhabila Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mrs. Durga Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Prakash Sharma, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of first informant by filing his vaklatanama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been filed by the applicant Chhabila Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0124 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 304, 325, 308 IPC, P.S. Tarya Sujan, District Kushinagar during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 02.05.2023, a delayed F.I.R. dated 25.5.2023 was lodged by first informant Indra Jeet Yadav and was registered as Case Crime No. 0124 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 304, 325, 308 IPC, P.S. Tarya Sujan, District Kushinagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., nine persons namely Navneet Yadav, Sujeet Yadav, Anil Yadav, Golu, Suresh, Dinesh, Chhabila (applicant herein), Raunak and Vijay have been nominated as named accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused who formed an unlawful assembly assaulted Khushi Yadav, brother of the first informant, Baliram Yadav, uncle of first informant, Kanchan Yadav, father of the first informant and other persons of the family of first informant.

¶11

After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, one of the injured Kanchan Yadav succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy of the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of deceased was coma as a result of ante mortem injuries. Autopsy Surgeon found following ante

¶12

mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

¶13

(1) Dressing of skull happened after opening dressing stapled injury seen of size 15 cm in C shape on right parietal temporal region with 31 stables. Another stitched injury with 6 stitched present at top of head. After cutting skin underneath vault is fractured. Clot and hematoma present.

¶14

Learned counsel for applicant contends that in the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings, two persons have sustained injuries, whereas one person has died. However, the author of the fatal ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased has not been specified either in the F.I.R. or in the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr. P. C.. The role assigned to named accused is common. She, therefore, contends that since the author of the fatal injury sustained by the deceased has not been disclosed by the prosecution itself, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 8.5.2023. As such, he has undergone almost three months of incarceration. Upto this stage no such material has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. She, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶15

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since the applicant is a named accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. On account of the act of applicant along with named accused, one person has lost his life, whereas two others have sustained injuries. The criminality committed by applicant and other named accused is joint and common. Therefore, same is incapable of separation or segregation. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, the learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the author of fatal head injury sustained by the deceased has not been specified either in the F.I.R., nor the same has been specified in the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr. P. C., coupled with the fact that there are 9 accused named in the F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal

¶17

proceedings, general role has been assigned to all the accused and considering the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, coupled with the fact that neither the learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel for first informant could point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant, during the pendency of investigation/trial, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Chhabila Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C..

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶24

(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above

¶26

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 HSM

¶27

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chhabila Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhabila Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shatrughan @ Ramsahodar Vs State of U.P.

Shanker Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh Thakur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hasmuddin Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Geeta Vs State of U.P. and Another