Allowed

Sumeer Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2018BAIL/4755/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the High Court observed that the applicant was falsely implicated due to business rivalry. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the Court granted bail citing fear of witness tampering and severity of punishment.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

Sumeer Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4755 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sumeer Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Kakkar,Shailendra Kumr Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is the Director of the company REVIVE HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LIMITED. He had never any business dealing with the informant. The said company does not deal the tickets of any air lines and the informant has never approached the applicant's company for purchase of any air tickets. He has neither sold any air tickets nor received any money from its cancellation. It is further submitted that the applicant's name has wrongly been taken by the co-accused due to business rivalry.

¶8

The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 28.12.2017. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses . In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for

¶10

the applicant.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Let the applicant Sumeer Chaudhary involved in Case Crime No. 1622 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406, 506, IPC, Police Station Sector-20, Noida, District Gautambuddha Nagar be released on bail on his 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:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶16

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement 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. Order Date :- 5.4.2018 Sanjeet

Sumeer Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumeer Chaudhary 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Narayan @ Lalla Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Smt Saroj Devi Vs State of U.P.

Shankar Prajapati and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Verma Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Singh @ Rahul Singh Vs State of U.P.and Anr.