Allowed

Chunnu Lal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2022BAIL/11600/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court allowed third bail application of Chunnu Lal in a criminal case involving offences under IPC Sections 147, 323, 308, 325, 452, 427, 504, 506. Relying on principles of parity with co-accused and passage of time, bail was granted with stringent conditions including surety and prohibitions against tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including court appearances and non-interference with witnesses.

Chunnu Lal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11600 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Chunnu Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Krishna Pandey,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anshul Pathak,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Sudhir Dixit,Surya Prakash Dubey,Utkarsh Dixit

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Surya Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The third bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Chunnu Lal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2017 (S.T. No. 38 of 2018), under Sections 147,323,308,325,452,427,504,506 IPC Police Station Kotwali, District- Mau, during pendency of trial.

¶7

This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 20.7.2017 and the second bail application was rejected on 13.4.2018 by the coordinate Bench of this court, which is not available. As per the order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 27.4.2022 since more than two years have passed from the date of rejection of the first and second bail applications, hence this Court can hear this application.

¶8

The fresh ground taken in this application is that co-accused Radheshyam, who was assigned similar role has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2019 in Criminal Misc. IVth Bail Application No. 37845 of 2019.Other coaccuseds have also been granted bail.Their bail orders have been brought on record. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.The applicant is in jail since 10.6.2017 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the

¶10

applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶18

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 sufÏcient 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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.8.2022

¶21

Atul kr. sri.

¶22

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.04 18:07:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chunnu Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chunnu Lal 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Asif Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Raidas @ Govind Vs State of U.P.

Fulendra @ Raj Chouhan Vs State of U.P.

Aneeta and Another Vs State of U.P.

Amit Gangwar Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P.