Allowed

Rahul Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023BAIL/9311/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence. Despite concerns regarding the seriousness of the charge, the court found satisfied bail parameters including clean antecedents and lack of motive, ordering release on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including attending court and not interfering with evidence.

Rahul Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131247

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9311 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hardev Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Hardev Prajapati, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Rahul Chauhan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.246 of 2022 under Sections, 392, 411, 264A, 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Ganjdundwara, District-Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 10.10.2022 a detailed F.I.R. dated 11.10.2022, was lodged by first informant-Pope Singh (father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.246 of 2022 under Section 363 I.P.C., Police Station-Ganjdundwara, District-Kasganj. In the aforesaid F. I.R., an unknown person has been arraigned as an accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that on 10.10.2022 at around 10.00AM, Durgesh Kumar son of first informant went out on his tractor with the flour mill attached to it. However, since then his whereabouts are not known. He appears to have gone missing.

¶11

After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During pendency of investigation, an application dated 12.10.2022 was given by the first informant to the Police stating therein that the dead body of his son is lying in the field. On the said information, Police arrived at the spot and recovered the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The Autopsy Surgeon found following antemortem injuries on the body of deceased:-

¶12

"i. Ligature mark of size 28cm x 01 cm present on neck situated at 07 cm below from right ear, 07 cm below from left ear, 08 cm below from chin.

¶13

2. Ligature mark is horizontal contineous just below thyroid cartilage, soft.

¶14

3. On dissection of ligation mark ecchymosis subcutaneous tissue present.

¶15

Note: i. left side greater horn of hyoid bone fractured larynx and trachea congested.

¶16

ii. Multiple abrasion present on anterior aspect of left side of chest in area 04x02 cm just below left clavicle.

¶17

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Two witnesss namely Adesh and Rajveer disclosed that Rahul Chauhan and Akash Chauhan were seen taking away the tractor alongwith flour mill attached to it. However, recovery of the aforesaid tractor was made from an isolated place which was lying in abandoned condition.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated in afore-mentioned case crime number. As per prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. he submits that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. As such, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. He has then invited the attention of Court to paragraph 152 of the judgement of Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra reported AIR 1984 SC 1622 . On basis thereof, he submits that complicity of an accused in a case based upon circumstantial evidence has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by Apex Court in aforesaid judgement. However, none of the parameters provided in aforesaid judgement are satisfied against present applicant. Up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged in the entire case diary on the basis thereof it can be said that there was strong motive against applicant to commit the crime in question. No recovery has been made from applicant either. Merely on the basis of the statements of Adesh and Rajveer, no conviction of applicant is possible as it does not fall in the category of last-seen. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 13.10.2022. As such, he has undergone more than eight months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalyzed. There does not exist any such circumstance necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial. He 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.

¶19

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the present bail application. He has invited the attention of Court to the bail rejection order. Much emphasis was laid to paragraph 27 of the bail rejection order. He contends that upto this stage it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. The innocence of applicant can only be established during the course of trial. As such, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, none of the parameters laid down by Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda (supra) are satisfied against present applicant upto this stage, clean antecedents of the applicant, there is nothing on record to establish motive against applicant for committing the crime in question, charge sheet in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. having been submitted and no such circumstance could be pointed out by the learned A.GA. necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶21

Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant -Rahul Chauhan involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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:-

¶23

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶24

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶25

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶26

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶27

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison

¶28

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 YK

¶29

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Chauhan 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

Kari Mohammad Akram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

State of Up vs Govind Das Sutradhar and Others

Vaseem Haider Khan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pranjal Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Veer Singh Vs State of U.P.