Allowed

Rahul Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2022BAIL/40600/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Criminal Misc. Bail Application where the applicant, falsely implicated in a robbery case involving snatching of cash and running away, was not named in the FIR, not arrested on the spot, had nothing recovered. The court, noting sufficient grounds, granted bail citing Satendra Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering and influencing witnesses.

Rahul Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40600 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today by the learned AGA is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.for the State and perused the record.

¶7

As per version of the FIR, when wife of the informant was returning her home after withdrawing a cash of Rs.1,00,000/from the Punjab National Bank, on the way, three unknown accused persons had snatched her bag consisting Rs.1,00,000/-, Pass book etc. and ran away.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submits that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name came into light on the confessional statement made by the coaccused. Applicant was not arrested on the spot. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Police has falsely implicated the applicant only to show his good work to the higher authorities. Applicant is no way involved in committing the aforesaid offence. Applicant has criminal history of seven cases which he has satisfactorily explained in para 15 of the bail application. Applicant is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 28.04.2022. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

In this matter, it appears that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name came into light on the confessional statement made by the co-accused; Applicant was not arrested on the spot; nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; Applicant has satisfactorily explained his criminal

¶11

history coupled with the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 28.04.2022; grounds for bail is sufficient.

¶12

Hence, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Rahul Chaudhary , who is involved in Case Crime No.740 of 2021, under Section 392 I.P.C, Police StationDeoband, District- Saharanpur, 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.

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.10.2022 Ashutosh

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH SINGH Date: 2022.10.20 16:48:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Satish Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Parveen Begam Vs State of U.P.

Kurban Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepu @ Devendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shivnaryan Sehra Vs State of U.P.