Dismissed

Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024BAIL/4118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fourth bail application for an applicant in custody since October 2018 in a double murder case under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. Court held that five years' incarceration was not sufficient ground given the heinous nature of the offence and rejected bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant to remain in custody.

Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67368

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4118 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

This is the fourth bail application. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected on 20.3.2023. The order dated 20.03.2023 is Annexure 2 to the bail application.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar , with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.1181 of 2018, under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the fact witnesses as well as formal witness have been examined and PW2 Nishant Shukla has not supported the prosecution case, who is an eye witness. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 05.10.2018 and ha spent long period of incarceration in jail therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel also submitted that in snap-shots of CCTV footage, the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has spent more than five years in jail. To support his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & another Special Leave to Appeal No.8523 of 2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024. He has relied upon para 19 of the judgment of Javed Gulam (Supra) and has submitted that the applicant is in jail for the last more than five years therefore, there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as such the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the

¶13

prayer for bail and submitted that it is a double murder case. The deceased had received multiple injuries caused by fire arm as well as by stick. It has been submitted by learned AGA that the applicant had been assigned the role of assaulting the deceased by stick. There was common intention to kill, assigned to all accused who assaulted the deceased and the deceased died out of multiple injuries caused by the accused. It is a heinous crime therefore, the applicant's bail is liable to be rejected. Learned AGA has further submitted that the complainant and PW3-father of the deceased have supported the prosecution case before the trial Court.

¶14

Learned AGA while making submission has submitted that the applicant is in jail for more than five years but it is a double murder and it is a heinous crime therefore, he deserves no mercy.

¶15

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, looking to the argument that it is a double murder case; argument that the earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected vide order dated 20.03.2023 by considering all the factual aspects ; argument that there was common intention to kill the deceased ; argument that it is a heinous crime therefore and period of five years is not sufficient to release the applicant on bail, this Court does not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the bail application moved on behalf of applicant Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar is hereby, rejected.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.9.2024

¶17

Pks

¶18

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civiil Sectt. Lko.

Viresh Kumar Verma @ Urli Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Madan Nag Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kalamu Alias Kalam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. U.P.

Haarun vs Union of India (D.R.I)

Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Lucknow Thru. Secy. Arvind Kumar Srivastava vs Mr. Nagaraju Maddirala, Secy. Deptt. of Financial Services-Banking Division, New Delhi and Others