V.D. CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 01-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

V.D. CHAUDHARY 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER I, 2005 
B 
[AR!JIT PASAYAT AND ARUN KUMR, JJ.] 
Code oJCriminal Procedure, 1973: 
Sections 438, 439-Bail-Cancel/ation of-Accused delaying and 
prolonging the case-Held: Case fit for cancellation of bail-However, Trial C 
court directed to complete trial in four months as the prosecution evidence 
was practically complete. 
Offence-Nature of offence indicated in FIR found to be inappropriate-
Held : Police can indicate appropriate offence in the charge-sheet. 
D 
A case was registered against the accused-respondent No. 2 under 
Section 304A and 338 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed 
under Section 304 and 338 IPC. Accused was granted bail for offence 
under Section 304A, 338 IPC. He applied for bail for offence under 
Section 304 and 338. High Court directed Magistrate to allow bail for E 
added offence under Section 304 IPC. 
In appeal to this Court, complainant contended that High Court 
should not have accepted plea of accused that on bail, trial was prolonged. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1. High Court has not indicated any reason for grant for 
bail. The charge sheet was filed alleging the commission of offence under 
Section 304 IPC. Merely because at some earlier point of time the 
investigation proceeded on the line as if offence punishable under Section G 
304-A is committed yet there is no embargo on the police filing charge-
sheet indicating appropriate offence. [1098-BJ 
Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and Anr., JT (2004) 2 SC 176, 
referred to. 
H 
1095 
A 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
. 
. 
. 
/ 
2. Though this is a fit case for C:ancellation for bail in view or the 
infirmiti~ pointed out above c~nsideri~g the fa~t that pros~ut~~~ lidence 
is practically dosed, the tri~l C~urt is d!rected to complete the trial by end 
of December, 2005; Respondent No. 2 - accused directed· to fully co-
·.operate for completion of trial and not seek unnecessaryadjournments; 
. 
I 
B if the Court feels that he is taking advantage of the bail granted which 
is being continued for nearly five years, and respondent no. l is found to 
be respons~ble for delay and/or tampering with evidence, the trial Court 
shall direct cancellation of bail. (1099-D, Et F) 
· . . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
C 1115 of2005.; . · 
Criminal Appeal No. 
From the Judgment and O~der dated 19 .II.:i003 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Crl.M.A. No. 9682 of 2003. 
D. 
P.K. Jain, Adv. for the Appellant. 
E 
F 
K.B. Sinha, O.K. Goswami and Atishi Dipanlcar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYATt J.: Leave granted. 
i 
. Informant calls in question legality of the order passed by a teamed 
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to respondent No.2 
(hereinafter referred' to as "the 'accused'). 
Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows: 
On 5.2.2000 comptaimmt lodged ·the First Inf~rmaticin Repdrt. It was 
stated therein ·that when he and hiS son were att~nding a marriage party. the · 
G .. responden·t-accused 'started fsrini shots from his gun. When he. was asked not 
to do so, he. did no"t stop and continued th·e frring. The ~ppellant's son Saurabh . 
received injuri~s du~ tO the shots. fir~d by the accuse& and he died due.~ the . 
.. 
" 
., 
. 
. .... 
· 
. 
injuries. ·Initially, the police registered a case alleging commission of offences 
punishable under Sections 304-A and 33&. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in 
H."' short the ·xrC'). After investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 304., 
.. V.D. CHAUDHARY v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 
1097 
I 
• 
and 338 IPC. Cognizance was taken and process was issued. Accused filed A 
an application for being released o~ baiL By the impugned order bail has been 
granted. 
· 
·' ' 
· ./ 
---- - ~ -
/ 
-:· /·· 
. --·( 
· 
According to the appellant. the accused was abscondmg fo~ about 2 
years. His prayer' for bail was initially rejected. Non·bailable. warrant and B 
process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Cruninal Procedure, 1973 
(in short the 'Co'de') were issued. Subsequently he was arrested. It was. 
submitted for the accused that he was already on bail for offence punishable 
under Sections 304-A and 3381PC. On a reading ~fFIR and other documents 
offence . under Section 304~A could' appear against the. ~ccused but C 
"surreptitiously'' the same has been converted into offence under Section 304 . 
IPC. With the fol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.