Allowed

Raju Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2020BAIL/28366/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a murder case where the accused was not initially named in the FIR. Relying on the nature of the evidence and the larger mandate of Article 21, the court directed trial courts to exercise jurisdiction to grant bail forthwith, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail on a personal bond without sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial proceedings, with sureties to be furnished once normal court funct

Raju Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28366 of 2020 Applicant :- Raju Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Murli Dhar Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Murli Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶5

The present bail application filed on behalf of Raju Chauhan seeking his bail who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.92 of 2020, u/s 302 I.P.C., P.S.-Badlapur, District-Jaunpur.

¶6

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his named has figured up in the statement of witness Vinod Kumar who has raised certain suspicion against the applicant. Thereafter, after affecting the arrest, a recovery was also alleged to be made from the public place about a knife on the pointing out of applicant, which does not contain any blood stain. It is also contended that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is further contended that the case of the applicant hinges upon the broken link of circumstantial evidence which does not generate sufficient confidence with regard to the involvement of the applicant in commission of present offence. The applicant is in jail since 12.6.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant Raju Chauhan, who is involved in aforementioned Case Crime 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 subject to

¶10

following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶19

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶20

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.11.2020 M. Kumar

Raju Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajkumari Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Vs State of U.P.

Ankit @ Tedha Vs State of U.P.

Greesh Vs State of U.P.