Daksh Chaudhay v. State of U.P.)
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43153 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14442 of 2024 Applicant :- Daksh @ Daksh Chaudhay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ziya Uddin,Avanish Kumar Srivastava,Kuldeep Kumar,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Gosain Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subhash Gosain, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Daksh @ Daksh Chaudhay with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 589 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44608 of 2023 (Daksh @ Daksh Chaudhay vs. State of U.P.). 5. Learned counsel for the applicant while placing paragraphs 40 and 41 of the affidavit has submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on the ground that there was a C.C.T.V. footage showing the presence of the applicant therein but the said footage was seen by the Investigating Officer, who had identified the applicant which is not reliable in the eyes of law and it needs to be proved in the trial and as such the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Further while placing paragraph no. 5 of the second supplementary affidavit dated 24.07.2024, it is submitted that the said C.C.T.V. footage was seen by the defence counsels on 05.02.2024 which also do not show the implication of the applicant in the present matter. It is submitted that as such the applicant be enlarged on bail. The applicant is in jail since 15.07.2023. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that trial in the matter is going on in which four prosecution witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution version. It is submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2023. It is submitted that the C.C.T.V. footage, even as per the pleadings in paragraph 40 show that the applicant was seen therein by the Investigating Officer which goes to show his presence and participation in the occurrence. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be thus rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2023. The said order reads as under :- "1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subhash Gosain, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Daksh @ Daksh Chaudhary, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 589 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged under Section 364 IPC on 12.07.2023 by Smt. Preeti Singhal against the applicant alleging therein that on 10.07.2023 at about 09:00 pm her nephew Keshav Goel aged about 18 years went from the house somewhere. She got a missing report lodged about it. During search of her nephew she came to know that Daksh the present applicant on greed of money has kidnapped him. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant and the deceased were classmates and friends. There is no eye witness to the murder. It is argued that the applicant neither abducted the deceased nor committed his murder. He did not throw his body in the canal. It is argued that the applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence and has no enmity with the deceased. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present case is only on the basis of suspicion. While placing paragraph 24 of the affidavit it is argued that the parents of the deceased were dead and the deceased was having three houses along with properties and therefore one Sanjay Singhal who is fufa of the deceased wanted to grab the properties and therefore he committed the murder of the deceased and the applicant being the friend of the deceased, has been implicated in the present case. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 15.07.2023. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that there is an incriminating CCTV footage in the present matter which has been seen by the Investigating Officer and noted in the case diary in which the applicant and the deceased are seen going on a two wheeler on the petroleum pump after getting fuel in the vehicle after which they both are seen proceeding forward. Further, the CCTV footage they are seen together, later on the applicant is seen returning alone on the said vehicle. It is argued that there is no disclosure by the applicant as to where he left the deceased. It is argued that subsequently the dead body of the deceased was recovered in which although the doctor did not find any external injury on it but on exploration of neck trachea was found to be congested and hyoid bone was found to be fractured. The doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia but could not ascertain as to how the same was received. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR, the CCTV footage collected during investigation is an incriminating evidence against the applicant which shows that the applicant and the deceased were travelling on a two wheeler, subsequently after some time the applicant was seen returning all alone. Later on, the body of the deceased was recovered in the canal. The Apex Court in the case of Surajdeo Mahto Vs. State of Bihar : (2022) 11 SCC 800 has stated that in such circumstance the accused has to disclose as to when and where he parted with the deceased. In the present case, situation is the same. Looking to the nature of the incident, CCTV footage and the case of Surajdeo Mahto (supra), I do not find it a fit case for bail. 8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected" 8. Insofar as the C.C.T.V. footage is concerned, the presence of the applicant has been seen by the Investigating Officer wherein he has been identified by him. Further appreciation of the same has to be done by the trial court at the appropriate stage. Viewing the C.C.T.V. footage by the defence counsels and then extending benefit of the same as per paragraph 5 of the second supplementary affidavit is not in the interest of justice at this stage. In view of the same, no ground for bail exists. 9. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad