Dismissed

Chhotey Alias Chhotu Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Allahabad HC13 Jun 2024BAIL/4893/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects bail applications for two accused accused of murdering an informant's husband while demanding goonda tax. Considering the gravity of the offence and the applicant's criminal history under the NDPS Act, bail was denied but witness recording was expedited allowing a future revive of the plea.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected. Trial court directed to record witness statements within four months. Applicants permitted to revive bail plea after such recording.

Chhotey Alias Chhotu Khan vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64303

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4893 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chhotey Alias Chhotu Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa,Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dheeraj Awasthi

¶5

WITH

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5071 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Jamsher Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava, Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dheeraj Awasthi,Raja Ram Pandey,Vipul Rai

¶8

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶9

Both the bail applications arise out of same case crime no.19 of 2024 and similar role have been assigned to the said accused applicants as such, both are being decided off by this common order.

¶10

Heard the counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Dheeraj Awasthi who appears for the informant.

¶11

The accused-applicants seek bail in FIR/Case Crime No.19 of 2024 under sections 323, 336, 308, 386, 302/34 IPC, P.S. Gangaghat, District Unnao.

¶12

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the brother-in-law of the informant was caught by the accused including the applicants and were demanding money and on non-payment, they started beating him and when the husband of the informant tried to intervene, he was also beaten by the said persons with the use of brick etc. which resulted in severe injuries to both the brothers and subsequently, the husband of the informant died because of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the applicants.

¶13

The counsel for the applicants argues that the applicant Chhotey @ Chhotu Khan is in custody since 15.01.2024 and the considering the general allegations including the main allegation against other co-accused, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

The counsel for the informant and the learned AGA strongly oppose the bail application by arguing that the applicants were demanding goonda tax on the main road and on non-payment, they allegedly inflicted the said injuries which resulted in death of the husband of the informant. It is also stated that apart from the two persons one other passersby was also injured on account of the terror being sought to be created by the applicants. It is further argued that the applicants took as many as nine dates to cross examine the witness no.1 and the

¶15

testimony of PW-2 is going on and thus, considering the gravity of the offence, the bail applications should be rejected.

¶16

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie, although as per the statement of the eye witness Shailendra, it was alleged that three persons who are the co-accused were engaged in demanding goonda tax, although allegations of hitting with the use of brick was assigned to one Kaley @ Shamsher.

¶17

In the light of which, it was proposed to be argued that the main accused was Kaley @ Shamsher and not the applicants, however, it cannot be ruled out that in a busy area, three persons created terror by demanding goonda tax and nonpayment thereof, allegedly killed the husband of the informant and caused injuries to the other two persons. The daredevil manner in which the applicants have committed the offence makes out a case for denial of bail particularly when the applicant Chhotey @ Chhotu Khan has one criminal history of an offence under the NDPS Act, as such, no case for bail is made out.

¶18

The bail applications of the applicants Chhotey Alias Chhotu Khan and Jamsher are rejected.

¶19

However, the trial court is directed to ensure that the statement of the witnesses shown at serial no.4 namely Sri Shailendra; serial no.5 Phoolmati @ Phoolkali; serial no.6 Vimal Shanker Mishra; serial no.11 Kallu Kashyap; serial no.12 Durga Shanker @ Babua and the witness shown at serial no.13 namely Mohit Kashyap are recorded without giving any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties preferably within a period of four months.

¶20

The Superintendent of Police, Unnao is directed to ensure that these fact witnesses are produced before the trial court for recording of their statements without fail.

¶21

The applicants would be at liberty to revive their bail plea after recording of these fact witnesses as directed above.

¶22

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court and the Superintendent of Police Unnao for its compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.9.2024

¶24

VNP/-

¶25

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

Chhotey Alias Chhotu Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotey Alias Chhotu Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Tejpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko.

Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raunak Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 4 Others

Vishal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Ramesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow