Allowed

Dhruv Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2022BAIL/18527/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a bail application for the applicant, Dhruv Chaudhary, accused in a Section 302 IPC case. The court found a case of bail based on prima facie satisfaction, severity of punishment, and constitutional mandates, referencing Dataram Singh. Bail was granted with specific conditions regarding court attendance, including automated tracking of absence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with conditions on court attendance to prevent abuse of liberty.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18527 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dhruv Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla,Swati Agrawal Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant. The first bail of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13747 of 2019 (Dhruv Chaudhary VS. State of U.P.) vide order dated 16.09.2021. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person. It is next contended that charge is not framed against the applicant till date. Applicant have no motive to kill Anil Kumar (deceased). Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has 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. It has also been submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2018 having no previous criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Dhruv Chaudhary, involved in Case Crime No. 193 of 2018, under Sections 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Cantt. District Bareilly

¶11

be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶12

(i) 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. 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.

¶13

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations, if any, 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 ultimate merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.10.2022 Vibha Singh

¶21

Digitally signed by VIBHA SINGH Date: 2022.10.22 13:29:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhruv Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruv Chaudhary 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Swaroop Vs State of U.P.

Hasmood Khan@ Baddu Vs State of U.P.

Sitaram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bahujan @ Sanjay @ Nityanandan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikash @ Banti Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Chetan Jadaun Vs State of U.P.