Allowed

Manish Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2021CRLA/2190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the High Court's order rejecting bail, noting a seven-day delay in the FIR and the fact that the primary accused had already been granted bail. The appeal was allowed, and bail with conditions was granted to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Release of appellant Manish Chaudhary on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions to cooperate with trial, not tamper with evidence, and refrain from unlawful activities.

Manish Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2190 of 2021 Appellant :- Manish Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Veer Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶4

None is present for the respondent no.2.

¶5

This appeal has been filed by appellant Manish Chaudhary against the impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Basti passed in Bail Application No.94 of 2021 (Manish Chaudhary & another vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.301 of 2018, under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Purani Basti, District Basti by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶6

The FIR has been lodged in respect of incident taking place on 3.10.2018 in respect of which on 10.10.2018 the FIR has been lodged for the aforesaid offence including the offence under Section 376 IPC with the allegation that the named accused persons forcibly, showing knife to the informant got her seated on motorcycle and on the way all the three sexually abused her with intention to outrage her modesty and co-accused Sagar Chaudhary committed rape on her and, thereafter, they left her in the village. She came back and told the whole incident to her parents, thereafter, the FIR was lodged.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is delay of seven days in lodging the FIR and only the act was outraging the modesty has been alleged against the appellant. It has been submitted that accusation of rape has been made against the co-accused Sagar Chaudhary and his bail has already been allowed granting him bail and order is annexed at page 100 of. The learned Special Judge did not consider this fact and rejected the bail application, which is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Special Judge has passed legally

¶9

valid order and the appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Considered the submission of both the sides and perused the record annexed with this appeal. I find that there is delay of seven days in lodging the FIR and there appears to be no explanation for this delay in the FIR. If the FIR is delayed by seven days possibility of an afterthought accusation cannot be denied. Moreover, the main accused Sagar Chaudhary who committed rape has been enlarged on bail, therefore, I find the illegality in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶11

In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti is set aside.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant Manish Chaudhary be released on bail in Bail Application No. 94 of 2021 (Manish Chaudhary & another vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2018, under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Purani Basti, District Basti on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶14

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.8.2021/Mini

Manish Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Satish Singh Chauhan @ Seetu Vs State of U.P.

Prem Paswsan @ Prem Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Meenakshi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Surmila and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rishipal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others