Dismissed

Chhota v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2023CRLA/3547/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act. The court held that the appellant was implicated in a murder conspiracy alongside co-accused, supported by incriminating recoveries and statements, and found no ground to enlarge custody.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; Trial directed to conclude within one year.

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

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126042

¶3

Reserved On:-25.05.2023 Delivered On:-12.06.2023

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3547 of 2023

¶5

Appellant :- Chhota

¶6

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Fateh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Sahu

¶7

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Mohammad Fateh, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Arvind Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No. 453 of 2023 has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 657 of 2022, under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly.

¶10

There is allegation in the FIR lodged against unknown accused that on 17.12.2022 at about 8:30 pm, the real brother of the informant, Jagdish, aged about 45 years had gone to the agricultural field for guarding his crops, but he did not returned in the morning. Thereafter, Shamshad, of his village made phone call to the pradhan of the village that brother of informant, Jagdish, is lying dead on the road. The pradhan informed that the informant and thereafter, the FIR was lodged on the next day. It was stated that someone caused his murder by causing injury with knife.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no one was named in the FIR. The Investigating Officer has falsely implicated the appellant in this case alongwith the co-accused persons. The appellant was implicated on the basis of the information given by the informant. A knife was recovered in three pieces after 26 days. The implication under section SC/ST Act is not justified. The appellant has criminal history of three

¶12

¶13

cases explained in supplementary-affidavit which are of minor nature. The appellant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2023.

¶14

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for the bail of the appellant.

¶15

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer of all the family members of the deceased, it has come that the appellant, coaccused, Jahid and Chota were friends. They often used to consume liquor together and the appellant, co-accused, Jahid and Chota, often used to give information of the street cattle to the cattle smugglers which was opposed by the deceased. The accused persons did not liked the deceased opposing them for their act of selling street cattle to the smugglers and therefore on the fateful night when the deceased and the accused persons both were drunk they brutally assaulted him by knife and caused his murder. There is incriminating recovery also made from the appellant and co-accused persons which substantiate the, otherwise inadmissible evidence of confession of appellant recorded before the police as per sections 25/26 of Evidence Act. The deceased was brutally murdered with eleven injuries on his body caused by sharp edged weapon.

¶16

This Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties does not finds any ground for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.

¶17

The criminal appeal is accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

Order Date :-12.06.2023

¶20

Abhishek

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chhota v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhota v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juned Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shonti Alias Shaswat Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sita Sharan Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Singh Thakur @ Lalluram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mugish @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navin Vs State of U.P. and Another