Allowed

Rajesh Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2022BAIL/49287/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court allowed the bail of the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and had no criminal history, considering the nature of the offence and the pandemic situation affecting jail overcrowding.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensuring cooperation in the trial.

Rajesh Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49287 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri S. K. Ojha, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 995 of 2020 under Section 364A I.P.C. registered at Police StationKotwali Nagar, District- Banda.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 13.10.2021.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR has been lodged by one Ramratan before Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Banda being FIR No. 0995 on 24.12.2020 at 14:36 hours against unknown person referable to the owner of mobile phone no. 7225953846 with the allegation that on 23.12.2020 the son of the informant who is aged about 18 years had gone to some where outside thereafter, he did not return back and when his whereabouts was sought to be raised, he was not traceable at all. He further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR however, while referring to page no. 24 of the bail application being the statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. this much has come that the victim is mentally challenged boy however, he has not taken the name of the applicant. He has drawn the attention of the court towards page no. 18 which appears to be the recovery memo in which at page no. page no. 20 the name of the applicant has surfaced but no recovery what so ever has been made from his possession. He further drawn the attention of the court towards paragraph no. 26 so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 02.11.2020.

¶9

Countering the said submission learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant's name does not find place in the FIR and nor in the statement of the victim and further that he does not possess criminal history.

¶10

Considering the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as the applicant is not named in the FIR and he does not possess any criminal history and looking into the nature of the 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant Rajesh Singh 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 :-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.2.2022 Nisha

¶22

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.02.26 16:51:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Singh Chauhan 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

Baij Nath Maurya Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Mujahid @ Soni Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Singh Chahar Vs State of U.P.

Jogendra Kumar @ Chotu Vs State of U.P.

Lakkad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Alias Vijay Shekhawat Vs State of U.P.