Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Munendra Alias Chandra Pal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3395 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16056 (14 September 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3395 of 2006

Munendra @ Chandra Pal....................Vs....................State of U.P.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

Heard Sri Vinay Saran Advocate on behalf of the applicant, Sri Alok Sharma learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. in opposition.

The applicant seeks bail in crime no. 177 of 2005, under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Madnapur, district Shahjahanpur.

The prosecution allegations against the applicant are that the applicant at 8.30 A.M. along with his brother Devendra @ Munna, Ram Dayal, Ramanand, all armed with countrymade pistol, came to the house of the informant Dhramveer son of Rameshwar Dayal and started vituparsing his father Rameshwar Dayal because of the pending land litigation. The malefactors dragged Rameshwar Dayal from his house and forcibly took him in the gallery of his house which was resisted by his wife Geeta Devi, his brother Narveer and his wife Suman Devi. Pushing the deceased in the gallery of their house the present applicant shot dead Rameshwar Dayal. Besides eyewitness this incident was allegedly witnessed by the neighbors also which occurred on 26.7.2005 at 8.30 P.M. The report of the incident was lodged at police station Madnapur same day at 12.05 P.M. by the informant Dharamveer covering a distance of 8 Kilometers. The postmortem report of the deceased dated 27.7.05 indicate that he had received a single gun shot injury with two abrasions. On these facts the applicant has applied for his bail to this Court after the same was rejected by Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur on 3.1.2006.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the prosecution case is absolutely false and infact because of the admitted land enmity and litigation the deceased entered into the house of the applicant and tried to molest Smt. Kanti Devi the mother of the applicant. Meanwhile, Devendra Kumar @ Munna the co-accused reached the house and heard the shrieks of his mother. He entered in the house and saw the deceased trying to molest his mother after empowering her and his mother was resisting fluttering to get freed from beneath the deceased and was shrieking for help. Devendra Kumar to save the honour of this mother from the clutches of the deceased pulled him away on which the deceased picked up his countrymade pistol and in the ensued scuffle the deceased received the fatal gunshot injury. He further contended that Devendra Kumar on 29.7.2005 had filed an application to S.P. Shahjahanpur with the aforesaid contents. The copy of the aforesaid application has been filed as annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit along with the registry receipt. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the inquest report of the deceased indicate that the deceased was wearing only an underwear and he was all nacked above waist. He further submitted that there was no dragging mark on the body of the deceased which belies the prosecution allegation of dragging and the two abrasions are a result of scuffle between him and Devendra Kumar. He further contended that if the four accused were armed with firearm there was no reason for them to drag to the deceased to their house and commit the murder to get themselves implicated in the murder case and the accused would have shot dead the deceased where he was working. He further contended that the very fact that the deceased was in underwear and that his body was found inside the house of the applicant is sufficient to show that the defence of the applicant is correct He also argued that the applicant does not have any criminal history nor he is likely to abscond and tamper with prosecution witnesses and before the said incident the applicant had not done any thing against the deceased and thus for him there was no occasion or special reason to commit the murder on that day.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the applicant contended that it was the applicant who had shot dead the deceased because of pending litigation. They further contended that there is an eyewitness account of the said incident which took place in daylight inside the house of the applicant and the defence of the applicant in false even though they did not dispute filing of annexure SA1 by Devendra Kumar.

I have considered the rival submission raised at the bar. No doubt it is a day light incident and the deceased had received a single gunshot wound from point black range. No other dragging mark has been found on the body of the deceased. There was no other clothes except the underwear worn by the deceased and at this stage it cannot be said that the defence of Devendra @ Munna mentioning therein that the deceased received injury in the scuffle with him because he was trying to molest his mother cannot be said to be absolutely absurd as nobody would like to level allegation of molestation on his own mother. Moreover I also do not find any reason to drag the deceased to one's own house to commit murder to make a full proof case against him which could have been committed at the house of the deceased itself in a spur of moment.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter any further I consider it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

Let the applicant Munendra @ Chandra Pal be released on bail in the aforesaid crime no. 177 of 2005, under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Madnapur, district Shahjahanpur, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to an amount of Rs. one lac the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions-

1.He will report at the concerned Police Station on every Sunday at the time to be fixed by the officer-in-charge of Police Station concerned.

2. He will not temper the evidence and will not abscond.

3. He will not leave the district without the permission of the CJM, Shahjahanpur and intimation to the concerned police station.

4. He will cooperate with the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

5. One of the two sureties will be his near kith and kin.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.