Allahabad High Court
Chandrajeet Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46445 of 2022
Applicant :- Chandrajeet Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash,Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhruve Chandra Sharma,Manoj Srivastava
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri R.K. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Manoj Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 60 of 2022, under Sections 302, 394, 411, 449 and 397 IPC, police station Didarganj, district Azamgarh during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution story, some unknown persons are said to have caused the murder of the two relatives of the informant in the night of 13.3.2022, which was revealed in the morning at 8.45 A.M. when a friend of the informant had gone to enquire about the deceased persons. The door of the house was broken open and the dead bodies of Smt. Lilawati, wife of Umashankar and Anchal, daughter of Akhilesh were recovered.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no previous criminal history. The only evidence against him is of the recovery of incriminating material including the cash and looted booty that too in the custody of the police personnel on 14.3.2022. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no independent witness of the said recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant indicated several contradictions in the said memo of recovery. He has further stated that no disclosure statement of the applicant has been recorded by the police, as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel has further stated that owing to the lack of the said procedural fault, the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to the present case. Two cases have been foisted on the applicant after the arrest under Section 307 IPC, which is a police party no injury case and another under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The applicant himself is said to have sustained gun shot injury in his leg after being fired by the police in his self defence. Several other submissions and contradictions have been indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant in the statement of the accused himself. Although, he has categorically stated that the said statement is not admissible in evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.3.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Aghnoo Najesia vs. State of Bihar; AIR 1966 SC 119, wherein it has been held that the Section 25 is imperative, and a confession made to a police officer under no circumstances is admissible in evidence against the accused.
Per contra, Shri Manoj Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that there are two other cases instituted against the applicant, though they have fairly conceded the fact that they have been instituted after the arrest of the applicant in the present case. They have stated that two ladies have been put to death in the said incident without any fault on their part. There is heavy recovery of cash amount from the applicant, which cannot be planted by anyone. The deceased persons belong to a normal family and not to an opulent family.
After hearing the argument of learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record and also the fact that there is no other ocular evidence except the said recovery and that too only in the presence of the police personnel and also the case law produced, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Chandrajeet Chauhan involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023
Sumaira
