Allowed

Pankaj Chaudhary Alias Pankaj Hudda Alias Ajay Hudda v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2025BAIL/1217/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a murder and criminal conspiracy case where the applicant's alleged role was only providing a flat to shooters. The court found his name and role had not surfaced anywhere in the investigation and enlarged him on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering and absence at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions.

Pankaj Chaudhary Alias Pankaj Hudda Alias… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5901

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1217 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Chaudhary Alias Pankaj Hudda Alias Ajay Hudda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,Shailendra Kumar Singh,Yasharth Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant is permitted to correct DistrictMoradabad, in place of District- Amroha in memo of the bail application within course of the day.

¶7

Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Shailednra Kumar Singh; learned counsel for applicant; Sri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for victim; learned AGA for State and perused the material on record.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Pankaj Chaudhary Alias Pankaj Hudda Alias Ajay Hudda , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 598 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 307 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad. , during pendency of trial.

¶10

The allegations in the F.I.R are that because of old enmity named accused, Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket, Prabhakar and others, came at Parshvanath colony, Moradabad at about 06:00 p.m and caused murder of Anuj Chaudhary by firing on him. At the time of incident, Puneet Chaudhary, who was along with Anuj Chaudhary at that time, also suffered gun shot injury. Hence, F.I.R was lodged by Sandeep Singh on 10.08.2023 at 20.49 hours at P.S.- Majhola, District- Moradabad.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecution case is doubtful since in the F.IR it is alleged that four named accused, namely, Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket and Prabhakar, caused gun shot injuries to the gun deceased as a result of which he died but in the application given at the police and in

¶12

statement of mother of deceased, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that four persons were standing outside a car while driver were sitting inside the car. After sometime three persons came on motorcycle. People standing near the car pointed out towards her son and they caused fatal fire arm injuries to his son from behind. The applicant is not stated to be the person who came on motorcycle along with two others. Niraj Khatri, son of Mahendra Singh, brother-in-law of deceased, gave an application on 29.09.2023 to S.S.P., Moradabad wherein he stated that the applicant and co-accused, Mohit Chaudhary, Satendra Singh and Lalit Kaushik, are involved in the conspiracy of causing murder of Anuj Chaudhary and therefore they should also be made accused in this case. The incident took place on 10.08.2023 and Niraj Khatri, has given application on 29.09.2023 implicating Kamal Vir and three co-accused named above. No place and time of meeting of minds of the conspirator and hatching of conspiracy was disclosed. Co-accused, Mohit Chaudhary and Satendra, were in jail prior to 29.09.2023 and how they conspired with the applicant and Lalit Kaushik has not been explained.

¶13

The only role assigned to the applicant is that he was broker who provided flat to the alleged shooters in the colony where the deceased were residing. He had no motive to commit the offence nor he is conspirator like some of the co-accused implicated in this case.

¶14

Learned counsel for the victim has submitted that applicant was also involved in this case alongwith the co-accused since he provided flat to the alleged shooters and they committed alleged offences.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds from the record of investigation that the investigating officer has collected evidence and on the basis of same apart from named accused, name of other unnamed accused have come to light. Police has collected C.C.T.V footage from the place of incident wherein three motorcycle rider came and made fire upon the deceased on 10.08.2023. On the same day, the field unit recovered a pair of slipper, one bullet 315 bore, one empty cartridge 32 bore, three empty cartridges 315 bore, blood stained concrete and blood

¶17

stained soil. Police sent the mobile numbers of named accused / suspected accused for surveillance and collected their call details. Statement of one, Monu Chaudhary son of Surendra Singh was recorded by the investigating officer which pointed out to the motive of crime and the conspiracy hatched by number of accused to commit the murder of the deceased, Anuj Chaudhary. Name of accused, Neeraj Pal, was disclosed by informer informing that he is very close to co-accused, Amit and he arranged shooters and provided money to them and also facilitated their escape after incident. Investigating Officer has collected C.D.R of mobile numbers of co-accused, Amit, Pushpendra, Prabhakar, Aniket and Neeraj Pal and has concluded that they were talking to each other prior to the incident. On 14.08.2021 accused, Aniket and Neeraj Pal, were arrested and recovery of one 315 bore tamanchha, two live cartridges and one mobile phone were made from Aniket and similar recovery was made from accused, Neeraj Pal. In the mobile phone of Neeraj Pal, his chatting with alleged shooter, Suryakant Sharma @ Shanu, was found. Neeraj Pal and Aniket disclosed the names of two more shooters, namely, Akash and Sushil, and also the motive of crime of election rivalry of deceased with mother of co-accused, Aniket, namely, Santosh Devi. Since the deceased was trying to bring no confidence motion again Santosh Devi, her son, Aniket, Neeraj Pal, Pushpendra @ Bhura and Amit, hatched conspiracy with three shooters provided them money arms and place for stay in the apartment of the deceased and got the murder of Anuj Chaudhary committed. On 22.08.2023 alleged shooters, Suryakant Sharma and Akash, were arrested and recovery of weapon used in the incident was made from them. Their statements were recorded by the investigating officer wherein they admitted commission of alleged crime. Suryakant disclosed the names and roles of Amit, Neeraj Pal, Pushpendra and Kamal Vir.

¶18

He has further stated that ten days prior to the incident, Neeraj Pal, Amit and Pushpendra, came to his canteen and provided him two country made pistol, one pistol and white coats for the purpose of committing the murder of deceased. They also provided them flats in the apartment of deceased and received Rs. 2 lacs from them for committing the murder of deceased. The statement of Suryakant Sharma was enlighten with the statements of co-accused, Akash and Sushil. On 23.08.2023, Pushpendra was arrested and he admitted his role in the incident and disclosed the names of coaccused involved in this case, namely, Amit, Mohit, Prabhakar, Aniket and Neeraj Pal. He stated that the conspiracy for commission of disputed murder was hatched for an amount of Rs. 30 lacs. He admitted that co-accused, Suryakant, Akash, Sushil,

¶19

Neeraj Pal and Aniket, had conversation with each other. Recovery of splendour motorcycle along with six photographs of the deceased were made from Akash @ Gatua; recovery of one registration certificate and insurance; one mobile phone; high security number plates of motorcycle and photograph of deceased was recovered from Suryakant; on the pointing out of Neeraj Pal, one tamanchha 315 bore, two live cartridge and one empty cartridge 315 bore, one register, one passbook, one adhaar card and one account slip mentioning payment of different amounts to Suryakant Sharma and name and mobile number of shooters was written; on the pointing out of Pushpendra @ Bhura, one tamanchha, two live and one empty cartridges of 315 bore, seven photographs of deceased and three photographs of shooters were recovered; on the pointing out of Aniket, one account diary and account slip mentioning the amounts given to Neeraj Pal on different dates and mobile number and names of shooters and number of security card used in the crime of murder. Incriminating recovery was also made from the flat taken by the shooters on rent along with photographs of the deceased; recovery of two mobile phones, one Wagon R Car (used in the crime) was made from Amit and in his statement, he admitted the conspiracy and motive of crime and stated that co-accused, Aniket, Pushpendra, Neeraj Pal, Kamal Vir and Prabhakar, gave contract to three shooters for committing the alleged offence. Aniket provided Rs. 6 lacs to Pushpendra and Neeraj Pal, for the aforesaid purpose. Statement of guard of society where the deceased resided, namely, Manak Singh and Deepak Singh, were recorded which are consistent with the prosecution case. D.N.A sample of accused, Aniket, Sushil, Suryakant, Pushpendra and Neeraj Pal, were taken and sent to F.S.L. On 30.08.2023, Rajni Devi, was victim and mother of deceased gave an application identifying three shooters on 29.09.2023 brother-in-law of deceased. Neeraj Khatri named Amit, Mohit, Satendra, Vikas and Lalit Kaushik, who had enmity with the deceased had different accounts as the person involved in the alleged crime. Statements of sisters of deceased were recorded to prove that four persons were standing outside a car and they indicated the three shooters to shoot the deceased. Investigating Officer has also collected mobile location of accused, namely, Amit, Aniket, Pushpendra and Vikas on 06.08.2023 at dhaba where they hatched conspiracy for committing the murder of deceased and were over heard by an independent witness, Jagdeep Singh Chauhan. Details of repeated conversation of accused with each other have been collected by the Investigating Officer in C.D.- 37. Statements of two sisters of deceased, namely, Rajni Devi, Shivika and his brother-in-law, Neeraj Khatri, have been recorded under

¶20

Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated about the motive of accused, Amit, Mohit, Prabhakar and Pushpendra, for committing the murder of deceased. They have also stated about the role of coaccused, Lalit Kaushik and Kamal Vir, with whom the deceased have money dispute. Statement of other formal witnesses have also been recorded by the Investigating Officer. Statements of accused have been recorded which disclosed their relationship and their role in the entire incident. Statement of Mohit Kumar Siddhu and another independent witnesses have been recorded wherein he stated that he saw Neeraj Pal, Amit and Pushpendra along with other person coming to canteen of Suryakant Sharma and providing him two tamanchha and one pistol along with white coats and asking him to commit the murder of deceased as early as possible.

¶21

It is clear from the above police investigation that the name and role of the applicant has not surfaced anywhere. Therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In

¶26

case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶29

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶30

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶31

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Abhishek

¶32

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

Pankaj Chaudhary Alias Pankaj Hudda Alias Ajay Hudda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Chaudhary Alias Pankaj Hudda Alias Ajay Hudda 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

Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravinath vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Prakash vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Sabbir vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Uma Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another