Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28794 of 2021 Applicant :- Akhilesh Chaurasia Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Bhushan Kunwar,Kamal Krishna (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kameshwar Singh
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi Bhushan Kunwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Akhilesh Chaurasia, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 42 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 504 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, registered at P.S. Khejuri, District Ballia.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present case is a cross case. The First Information Report of the present case was registered as Case Crime No. 0042 of 2020 at 2:00 hrs by Waseem Ahmad under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 504 IPC in connection with the incident which had taken place on 04.05.2020 at about 08:00 hrs naming the applicant and four other co-accused persons namely Abhineet Chaurasia, Dhanu Verma, Praveen Chaurasia and Pankaj Verma after which First Information Report was got registered by Abhineet Chaurasia against Sohail Khan, Tauseef Khan, Asif Khan, Shoaeb Khan, Fardeen Khan and Arashad Raja as Case Crime No. 0043 of 2020 at about 20:30 hrs under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 504, 452, 294 IPC wherein the incident is said to have taken place in the house of the first informant.
4. It is argued that the present case is a cross case and both sides have received injuries. From the side of the prosecution in which the applicant is seeking bail Waseem, Fardeen, Ahmad Raja, Raja Murad, Shoaeb Khan, Asif Khan, and Tauseef have received injuries out of whom Waseem Ahmad and Fardeen Khan have died. Smt. Shaira Bano is also said to have received injuries in the statement but no medical examination could be found in the records. It is further argued that from the side of the applicant Abhineet Chaurasia the first informant of the cross case and Akhilesh Chaurasia (the present applicant) have received injuries.
5. It is argued that the police has submitted charge sheets in both the cases. Learned counsel has argued that the First Information Report of the present case is silent in so far as it relates to the place of occurrence after which in the statement of the first informant and the other witnesses it is stated that the same has occurred in a garden when the first informant and the other persons were returning to their house. It is argued that although Smt. Saira Bano has stated that co-accused Dhanu Verma and Abhineet Chaurasia caught hold of the hand of her husband Waseem Ahmad and twisted it, Praveen Chaurasia was armed with lathi and Pankaj Chaurasia and the applicant Akhilesh Chaurasia were armed with knives and on the exhortation of Dhanu Verma her husband was assaulted with knives and then all the accused persons assaulted him and other persons who received injuries but the same is false and the place of occurrence is the house of the applicant where the incident had taken place and as such the same is a cross case.
6. It is argued that the case of the prosecution is of co-accused Sohail indulging in some immoral acts and teasing the niece of Waseem Ahmad the first informant in the present case which was the motive for the present case. It is argued that the applicant has no motive in the present case. It is further argued that recovery of knife as shown on the pointing out of the applicant is false and a planted recovery. Learned counsel has further argued that even the site plan of the place of occurrence would show that the incident had occurred near the house of the accused persons. It is argued that as such the present case is a cross case in which both sides have received injuries and there are First Information Reports from both the sides in which after investigation charge sheets have been submitted in both the matters. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 06.05.2020.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased and five injured persons have received serious injuries of knives. Ahmad Raja @ Sonu, Shoaeb and Tauseef are the eye witnesses and also the injured persons who have stated about the participation of the applicant and assault by him by knife. The injuries received by the accused persons in the said cross case are simple in nature and the injury received by Akhilesh Chaurasia the applicant was referred for x-ray examination wherein the doctor did not find any abnormality after x-ray examination, copy of the x-ray report has been placed before the Court which is annexed as annexure C.A.-4 to the counter affidavit. It is argued that as such the injuries from the side of the accused persons are minor in nature. The other case which is shown as a cross case is a case which is an afterthought just in order to give the case a different colour.
8. It is further argued that even the time of the said cross case is different as that of the present case which is shown to have taken place at about 08:30 PM but the present case in which the applicant is seeking bail was of 08:00 PM. It is further argued that co-accused Praveen Chaurasiya and Dhanu Varma had applied for bail before this Court which have been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide same order 02.12.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 27994 of 2020 (Praveen Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P.) and 27889 of 2020 (Dhanu Verma Vs State of U.P.), copy of the orders are annexed as annexure C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit. It is further argued that although co-accused Abhineet Chaurasia has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.11.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33608 of 2020 (Abhineet Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is also annexed as annexure C.A.-2 to the counter affidavit but even therein it has been specifically stated that his role is different as that of the present applicant. The role of the applicant is the same as that the role of Dhanu Verma in the present incident. It is argued that as such the cross case is with an intention to create a false case and get benefit in the present case in which two persons have lost their lives and five persons are injured. There is a recovery of knife on the pointing out of the applicant. It is argued that as such the applicant is involved in the present case.
9. Learned counsel for the State has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant and has further supplemented it by arguing that the medical examination of the deceased and the injured persons corroborates with the ocular evidence and the role of the applicant of assault by knife gets fortified by looking to the injuries along with the fact that knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant.
10. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, looking to the facts of the case and particularly the fact that the time of the incident in the present case and the said cross case is different, the injuries received by the applicant and other accused person in the said case is minor in nature, it is highly doubtful that the said case is a cross case and particularly looking to the fact there is time difference of 30 minutes between both the cases, the same could not be a cross case of each other. There are two persons who have lost their lives and five persons who are injured having received serious injuries in the present case. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
11. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
13. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
14. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
15. 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 :- 23.9.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)