Allowed

Ramakant Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2021BAIL/37276/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application filed by Ramakant Chauhan, father-in-law of the deceased, in a case involving 498A, 304B IPC and Dowry Prevention Act offences. Relying on the testimony of fact witnesses failing to support the prosecution, the court granted bail. Released on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions to ensure attendance and prevent tampering with evid

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to conditions regarding tampering, attendance, and appearance at hearings.

Ramakant Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37276 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramakant Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivkumari Chauhan,M.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ramakant Chauhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 122 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act, registered at Police Station Rasra, District Ballia.

¶7

This is second bail application. First bail application was rejected vide order dated 26.11.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31819 of 2019.

¶8

Applicant is father-n-law of the deceased and languishing in jail since 21.06.2019.It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the changed circumstance for filing the instant bail application is that during trial witnesses of fact have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution version. At this stage, there is no apprehension of the applicant tampering the evidence or influencing the witnesses. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, however, does not dispute the fact.

¶10

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Ramakant Chauhan , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner

¶14

whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.

¶17

(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

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

Order Date :- 15.12.2021 Mukesh Kr.

Ramakant Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant 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

Roshan Vs State of U.P.

Vimak Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Sudhakar Mishra Vs Narcotics Control Bureau U.P. Lucknow

Sheshveer Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Allahabad Development Authority Vs Presiding Officer and Another

Santosh Srivastava Vs State of U.P.