Allowed

Khajanchi @ Khajanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2024/158/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 IPC. Relying on the postmortem report stating the cause of death was ante-mortem smothering not corroborated by injuries and lack of specific allegations, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Khajanchi @ Khajanti Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8345

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 158 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Khajanchi @ Khajanti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.60 of 2023 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Lilapur, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the brother of the informant Abhinandan Singh used to talk to the wife of the applicant and on 27.02.2023 at about 11:45 pm, the wife of the applicant had called the brother of the informant where the persons named in the FIR who were eight in number with a common intent caused injuries on the bother of the informant by the use of Lathi, Danda and Kulhari etc., as a result whereof, he sustained grievous injuries and was declared brought dead in the hospital.

¶9

In the light of the said allegations, the contention of the counsel for the applicant is that as per the postmortem report, although nine injuries are said to be present on the body of the deceased which are as under :

¶10

(i) Multiple lacerated wound over hour lip muscle deep.

¶11

(ii) Three stitch present over nasal border.

¶12

(iii) Multiple abrasion present over left eyebrow face.

¶13

(iv). Contused swelling present over left shoulder joint.

¶14

(v) Multiple abrasion present over Lt. thigh to ankle.

¶15

(vi). Multiple abrasion present over left thigh at ankle.

¶16

(vii). Abraded contusions present over the hip.

¶17

(viii). Abraded contusion present over silateral.

¶18

(ix) Abraded contusion present on bilateral side.

¶19

He argues that the cause of death as per the postmortem report is ante-mortem smothering. In the light of the said, it is argued that ante-mortem smothering is not corroborated by any of the injuries as reflected in the postmortem report. He further argues that general allegations were levelled against all without there being any specific allegation of smothering which is the cause of death. It is further argued that in any of the statement, no specific allegation were levelled against the applicant of causing smothering. It is argued that the applicant has one criminal case against him under sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC being case crime no.893 of 2019 and apart from the said, the applicant has no other criminal history.

¶20

Considering the submissions made at the bar and the opposition of the learned AGA for grant of bail, prima-facie in view of the postmortem report, the cause of death is antemortem smothering and the allegations have been levelled against as many as eight accused without there being any specific allegation against the applicant, as such, considering the said fact coupled with the fact that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail can adversely affect the trial, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Khajanchi @ Khajanti be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.25000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶22

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶23

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 30.1.2024

¶26

VNP/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khajanchi @ Khajanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khajanchi @ Khajanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Home, Lko.

Azad Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chhotkau Alias Wasim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others