Allahabad High Court
Chhatrapal vs State Of U.P. on 2 December, 2020
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42880 of 2020 Applicant :- Chhatrapal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Navneet Singh holding brief of Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Chhatrapal seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 133 of 2020, under Sections 302/34, 120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that though the applicant is named in the First Information Report but he has been named as a person along with Sunil Yadav accompanying the deceased on a different vehicle, and later on, four persons are said to have come on two motorcycles amongst whom someone shot the deceased Anurag Sharma as a result of which he died. He further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The recovery of a country made pistol of 315 bore and one country made pistol of 12 bore with live cartridges were on the joint pointing out of the applicant and co-accused Pawan Yadav. It is further argued that Sunil is an eye witness to the incident whose statement is annexed as annexure 9 to the affidavit in support of the bail application which was recorded on 01.06.2020, in which, he states that the deceased Anurag Sharma was shot by Rajkishore @ Duriya and Babu @ Himanshu who came on motorcycles from behind. It is further argued that the First Information Report was registered on 21.05.2020, in which, the applicant was a person who was said to be a witness to the incident. It is further argued that co-accused Pawan Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2020 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 29262 of 2020 (Pawan Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). Para 41 of the affidavit has been placed while explaining the eight cases of criminal history of the applicant and it is stated that the applicant has been granted bail in all the eight cases. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 29.05.2020. It is further argued that the role of the applicant is at par with that of co-accused Pawan Yadav and parity is claimed. It is further argued while placing para 40 of the affidavit that the deceased Anurag Sharma was having criminal history and was involved in as many as 38 cases which have been mentioned in the said paragraph.
Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant though was named a conspirator and the murder was well planned, in which, the applicant with Sunil was accompanying the deceased and other persons came and shot him, as a result of which, he died. It is further argued that Sunil kept silence for about good period of ten days and then his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he discloses the name of the assailants. It is further argued that the applicant is having eight cases against him as his criminal history.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is apparent from the records that the applicant was a witness present along with Sunil at the place of occurrence and were travelling with the deceased but on different vehicle. The statement of Sunil was recorded on 01.06.2020 and he remained silent for a good period of ten days before disclosing the name of assailants as being an eye witness to the incident. In so far as the argument relating to parity is concerned, co-accused Pawan Yadav who has been granted bail had no previous criminal history as has been stated in the order dated 23.11.2020. The applicant admittedly is having eight criminal cases as his criminal history which are mentioned in para 41 of the affidavit which are as follows:-
i) Case Crime No. 239 of 2015, u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
ii) Case Crime No. 606 of 2015, u/s Gunda Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
iii) Case Crime No. 127 of 2018, u/s 420, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
iv) Case Crime No. 136 of 2018, u/s 420, 406, 506, 332 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
v) Case Crime No. 206 of 2018, u/s 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
vi) Case Crime No. 836 of 2018, u/s 323, 504, 506, 406, 392 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
vii) Case Crime No. 824 of 2019, u/s 135 Electricity Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
viii) Case Crime No. 980 of 2019, u/s 147, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur.
Amongst eight criminal cases, the applicant is involved in one case under Section 302 IPC, in which, he is stated to have been granted bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record and the fact that the applicant is again involved in a case of murder while being on bail in eight other case including a case of murder, it is a case of misuse of bail, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 2.12.2020 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)