Allowed

Mukhlal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jan 2023MCRCA/988/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in an anticipatory bail application under CrPC Sec. 438, allowed bail to the applicant facing charges of murder and related offences. The single judge held it was a fit case for bail, imposing conditions regarding interrogation, inducing witnesses, prejudice to trial, and appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety for like sum and four standard conditions.

Mukhlal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 988 of 2022

¶5

Mukhlal Yadav S/o Harihar Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Dol Police Station Chiniya District Gadhva, Jharkhand.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station Sanawal District Balrampur -Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant	: Ms. Indira Tripathi, Adv.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Sushil Sahu, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

20/ 01/ 2023

¶14

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 33/2021 registered at Police StationSanawal, District- Balrampur (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363, 364, 365, 120B, 313, 34 of the IPC.

¶15

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased namely Soni married Babban, who is the son of the co-accused Shanti Devi w/o Munsi Yadav and was residing in her matrimonial home she became pregnant however her husband wanted to get it aborted hence administered some medicine which was given by Vinod Gupta but the abortion could not take place. Subsequently, Babban took the deceased to another place but they did not return however on dated 16.06.2021 her dead body was found it is alleged that the child born to the deceased was being handed over to different persons. Based on

¶16

¶17

this, offence has been registered against the present applicant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She next submits that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant, therefore offence cannot be made out. She next submits that the applicant has not played any active role in the murder of the late Soni Devi. She also submits that the main allegation is against the Babban and the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 9370/2021, MCRC No. 9825/2021 and MCRC No. 10168/2021 vide order dated 28.01.2022. Therefore, the present applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶19

On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the application for anticipatory bail.

¶20

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the nature of the allegation against the present applicant and also the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant and the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions:

¶21

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required;

¶22

¶23

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶24

(iii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶25

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial

¶26

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶27

H.L. Sahu

Mukhlal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhlal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Smt. Shanti Devi Singh Vs Nandkumar

Giriraj Solvent Ex. Pvt. Limited (Ganpati Solvent Ex. Pvt. Limited) Vs Premchand Moolchand Agrawal

Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar Vs Smt. Dipti Chandrakar

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank and Ors.

Gurjinder Pal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh