Allowed

Haridesh Chauhan v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022BAIL/3851/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Court allowed bail to Haridesh Chauhan in a theft case. The court observed the jail overcrowding due to the pandemic and accepted the applicant's explanation regarding criminal history as satisfactory.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including not tampering with evidence and not committing new crimes.

Haridesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Secretary… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3851 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Haridesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sravan Kumar Ojha, learned A.G.A. who appears for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Haridesh Chauhan for enlarging him on bail in connection with Case Crime No.52 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Nichlaul, District- Maharajganj.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 5.10.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged before Police StationNichlaul, District- Maharajganj by Mustaaq on 4.2.2021 at 18:30 hours being F.I.R. No. 0052 of 2021 with an allegation that two water tanks was stolen. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case in question. He further argued that on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sandip Yadav and Dinesh, name of the applicant as well as one Chhote Lal has been surfaced. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph 10 of the bail application so as to contend that there is one criminal history being Case Crime No. 415 of 2021 under the Gangster Act is pending against him, however the said case is post lodging of the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he is not named in the F.I.R. and he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next argued that no recovery has been made from the applicant and the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 08.09.2021. He lastly argued that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Countering the said submissions, learned AGA has opposed the

¶10

prayer for bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicant, as such he has been prosecuted in the case in question, but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid case.

¶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 08.09.2021, 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- Haridesh Chauhan 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

¶20

accepted.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.2.2022 CS/-

¶25

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 15:53:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haridesh Chauhan v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridesh Chauhan v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritik Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Bharti Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Dara Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Arif Mota Vs State of U.P.

Sagar Vs State of U.P.