Held that the applicant is entitled to bail. Directed SSP Bulandshahar to appear via video conferencing and file affidavit explaining failure to provide instructions to AGA.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties; prosecution directed to move cancellation if conditions breached or averments found false.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58942 of 2022 Applicant :- Shahnajar Urf Sonu Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 1544 of 2018 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar under Sections 376, 420, 406, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2022.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar on 21.11.2022.
Sri Prateek Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Sri A.Z. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The FIR is a result of a relationship gone awry. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has admitted that she was intimate with the applicant and had engaged in a consensual physical relationship with the applicant. The applicant never gave a plighted word to marry the victim. An aggravated and false version was depicted by the victim in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents only to deflect attention from the conduct of victim. There are material contradictions in the FIR and the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Section 164
Cr.P.C. which discredit the prosecution case. The FIR is being leveraged to force the applicant to marry the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. The applicant resides in Bulandshahar. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who has cooperate with the police investigation. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya learned AGA contends that no instructions have been forthcoming. He seeks time to seek instructions in the matter.
Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by apathy of the police officials. There is no cause for failing to provide instructions to the learned Government Advocate despite advance notice of the bail application. Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar, shall remain present through video conferencing mode on the next date of listing. Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar shall file an affidavit explaining the failure by the police authorities to provide timely instructions to the learned Additional Government Advocate despite advance notice of bail application and violating the directions of this Court in Sahil Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19839 of 2021) as well as in Aditya
Dubey alias Sachin Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17969 of 2022) and the consequential orders passed by the Director General of Police, Government of U.P, Lucknow.
I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Shahnajar Urf Sonu Chaudhary be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(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.
In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 22.12.2022 Pravin
Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 1544 of 2018 based on the lack of criminal history and cooperation with police.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sahil Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Sahil Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19839 of 2021)
Aditya Dubey alias Sachin Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Aditya Dubey alias Sachin Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17969 of 2022)
Shahnajar Urf Sonu Chaudhary
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
