Allowed

Shani Chaubey @ Alok Kumar Chaubey v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2022/5529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO/SC/ST Acts. The court noted the victim's changed statement and the bail granted to an identical co-accused by a coordinate bench as key factors for granting bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with undertakings to appear in trial and not tamper with witnesses.

Shani Chaubey @ Alok Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5529 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shani Chaubey @ Alok Kumar Chaubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 711 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354Kha IPC & 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(1)Da, Dha, Ba(1), 3(2)5Ka SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He next added that the victim has herself changed the version of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He added that in the first information report the present applicant including other two accused persons have been named and thereafter in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. name of the applicant has also been repeated but statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C the victim has drastically changed her statement and the same is afterthought. He added that identical situate co-accused namely Himanshu @ Anand Pandey has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.226 of 2021 vide order dated 08.02.2021. He is seeking parity of the order aforesaid. He further submits that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant which has been explained in para 16 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 05.04.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State

¶10

vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically assigned role to the present applicant and as such he is not entitled to be released on bail but he could not dispute the fact that identical situated co-accused has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further there is no previous criminal history of the applicant.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there is no independent public eye witness of the aforesaid incident and victim has changed her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C then the statement and version of the first information report; identical situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court; further there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 05.04.2022.

¶12

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Shani Chaubey @ Alok Kumar Chaubey involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the

¶17

case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

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

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶22

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.18 11:06:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shani Chaubey @ Alok Kumar Chaubey v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shani Chaubey @ Alok Kumar Chaubey v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

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

Vandana Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Majeed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kishor @ Tobhu Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Bhagauti Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Taufiq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko