Allowed

Shyam Sunder Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 May 2018BAIL/15878/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed granting the applicant release on personal bond and sureties. The court imposed strict conditions regarding presence in court, no adjournments during evidence, and consequences for willful violation, noting the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court appearance and no abuse of liberty.

Shyam Sunder Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15878 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi and Sri AB Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that one Shaheed Ansari, father of the prosecutrix, has lodged the FIR after four days of the alleged incident i.e., on 07.02.2018, under section 366 IPC against present applicant Shyam Sunder Chauhan with the allegations that during the intervening night of 3/4 February, 2018 all of a sudden his daughter (the victim) disappeared from her bed but later on it came to his knowledge that she had gone. All these factors, if jointly read give an impression that she was also having same feelings and emotions qua the applicant Shyam Sunder Chauhan Thereafter the girl was recovered and her statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she categorically stated that she fled away

¶7

with the applicant on her own volition and accord, no forcible physical relationship was made by the applicant and at last she stated that she does not want to go with her parents. However, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per medical report she is aged about 18 years. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she in a very mellow manner stated that the applicant established physical relationship against her wishes but she has not denied that she went on her own accord and volition with the applicant Shyam Sunder Chauhan. At last learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 07.02.2018 and has no criminal antecedent to his credit.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Shyam Sunder Chauhan, involved in Case Crime No. 33 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 376 Jha IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

¶11

Act, P.S. Saiyadraja, District Chandauli be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT

¶16

UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 2.5.2018

¶19

shailesh

Shyam Sunder Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyamu Pal Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Awasthi Vs State of U.P.

Babu @ Babu Bhai Vs State of U.P.

Shubham Raj @ Akash Raj Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishore Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Indra Pal Vs State of U.P.