Chaman Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 92

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3296 of 2022

Applicant :- Chaman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Avaneesh Kumar Shukla, the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Chaman for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.813 of 2021, under Sections 420, 460, 411 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 12.1.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Shiv Kumar against the applicant before P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar being FIR no.813 of 2021 on 16.12.2021 at 12.00 hours under Sections 420, 460, 411 regarding commission of offence with an allegation that the applicant had stolen certain precious yellow metal and the applicant thereafter duped one Brijendra as he has taken the money but he did not give to yellow metal to him. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question, he has no point of time committed the offence and there is no independent witness. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph 13 so as to contend that in Case Crime No.256 of 2019, Case Crime No.257 of 2019, Case Crime No.261 of 2019, and Case Crime No.591 of 2019, he has been enlarged on bail on 15.6.2019, 17.6.2019 and 21.2.2020 orders whereof has been annexed along with the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 16.12.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Countering the said submissions, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the

¶10

applicant, as such he has been prosecuted in the case in question, but he could not dispute the fact that the criminal history has been explained.

¶11

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as he has explained the criminal history satisfactorily and the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Chaman involved in aforesaid 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 that :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

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

¶21

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.2.2022 piyush

¶24

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.14 17:30:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chaman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithilesh Kumar Mahto Vs State of U.P.

Nathu Kha Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Khan Vs State of U.P.

Samruddin Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Awadhesh Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.