Allowed

Lukman Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022ABAIL/8057/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recalled an earlier order on 18.11.2022 following a supplementary charge sheet. Granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving alleged molestation and caste-based threats, conditional on surrender and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail via personal bond with two sureties and conditions to ensure presence and prevent tampering or absconding.

Lukman Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8057 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lukman Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Recall Application No. 01 of 2022

¶7

For the reasons given in the affidavit in support of recall application the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by this Court is hereby recalled.

¶8

Personal affidavit has been filed by Ms. Poonam Sirohi, presently posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer, Sadar Dehat), District- Meerut, stating that after the order of this Court a supplementary charge sheet has been filed wherein the name of witnesses have been disclosed before the Court.

¶9

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶10

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Lukman Chauhan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2021, under Sections- 354, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial.

¶11

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶12

The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on

¶13

anticipatory bail till cognizance is taken by the court on the police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶14

The police report has been submitted on 10.05.2021 and the applicant has approached this Court again in July, 2022 praying for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant till the conclusion of trial.

¶15

There is allegation in the FIR that on 06.01.2021 at about 09:00 p.m., the applicant along with three other persons came in car and started molesting the informant. They also used caste coloured words against her and threatened her of abduction and rape. On raising alarm, two persons came and accused tried to elope in the car which hit a tree and the wind screen of their car was broken.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. No injury was found on the body of the informant and she mentioned only pain in her left knee. She falsely made allegation against another person, Dildar, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who was not named in the FIR. Therefore, the FIR version is not reliable. It is alleged in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that unnamed co-accused, Dildar, came on motorcycle. Dildar has also been charge sheeted by the police in this case. The applicant came to know of filing of charge sheet only when summons were sent by the Court. The victim had earlier also lodged FIR registered as Case Crime No. 261 of 2017, under Sections 506, 509, 354Gha, 323 IPC, Police StationParikshitgarh, District- Meerut on 13.04.2017 and Case Crime No. 21 of 2019, under Sections- 354, 507 IPC at Police StationCivil Lines, District Meerut, alleging offences of molestation, etc., against other persons. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. He has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶18

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R has been lodged. The courts

¶19

have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349, the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶20

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶21

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶23

The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶24

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶25

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶26

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶27

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.

¶28

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, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 28.11.2022 Rohit

¶31

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.11.29 16:49:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lukman Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lukman Chauhan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Ram Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation Jhansi and Others

Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs Board of Revenue and 6 Others

Adya Mishra Vs Board of Revenue

Deep Narayan and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6 Others

Bachchi Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kishor Vs State of U P and 2 Others