Allowed

Sanjay Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2021BAIL/21836/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21836 of 2021, the Allahabad High Court, Suneet Kumar, J., allowed bail for applicant Sanjay Chauhan accused of theft and forgery, citing false implication and reasonable apprehension of witness tampering, releasing him on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount.

Sanjay Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21836 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through video conferencing.

¶6

As per prosecution case, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen, F.I.R. was lodged on 13.11.2020. Subsequently an application was filed on 23.03.2021 by the complainant before the Police officer alleging that the vehicle was stolen by one Nishant; the vehicle was recovered by the officials of Police Station Sihani Gate. It is further stated that the stolen vehicle was being driven by Head Constable Vipin Chawla after coloring the vehicle white. It is urged that applicant is computer operator in the Police department and the alleged stolen vehicle is said to be recovered from the road outside the house of the applicant. It is a case of false implication. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2021, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial. Criminal antecedents have been duly explained.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

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.

¶9

This application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Sanjay Chauhan, involved in Case Crime No. 955 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶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 of

¶13

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 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.

¶16

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶17

(vi) The computer generated copy of the order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶18

(vii) 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.

¶19

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶20

The order reads thus:

¶21

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶22

Order Date :- 15.6.2021 P. Sri.

¶23

Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2021.06.16 10:56:29 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Pradeep Kabutra Vs State of U.P.

Kale Vs State of U.P.

Alishaan Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Tonde Vs State of U.P.

Israr Vs State of U.P.

Radha Kishan Vs State of U.P.