Allowed

Chhotelal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2022BAIL/57184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Chhotelal accused under IPC Sections 420, 272, 467, 468, and 471. The court granted bail on a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding appearance and conduct during trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions of appearance and non-abuse of liberty.

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57184 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chhotelal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Ram Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Shri Ram Yadav and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicantChhotelal with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in C ase Crime No. 836 of 2022, under Sections 420, 272, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Shikohabad, District-Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant was only an employee of the alleged sweet shop of which the co-accused Rahul @ Pramod was proprietor. The applicant has no concern with making of the adulterated sweets. As per the prosecution case itself, only utensils for making sweets have been recovered and no adulterated sweets have been recovered, as such the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the offence under Section 272 I.P.C. is not made out. The present case lodged by the Police is totally false as the Police and officers of the Food Department were demanding illegal money from the proprietor of the shop and when he refused to give the same, the present case has been engineered roping all the named accused persons including the applicant and his proprietor. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that 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. The applicant is in jail since 23rd October, 2022.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the

¶10

applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶16

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 21.12.2022

¶18

Sushil/-

¶19

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.22 09:25:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chhotelal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotelal 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

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Ajay @ Alla Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rehman Vs State of U.P.

Chhabila Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kumar Rahi Vs State of U.P.