Allowed

Ankur Chaudhary v. the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home)

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022BAIL/7809/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Court, noting the applicant's marriage to the prosecutrix and absence of criminal history, found him fit for regular bail. The interim bail was confirmed subject to previous conditions.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed; the applicant is released on regular bail, and the earlier interim bail order is confirmed.

Ankur Chaudhary Vs the State of U.P. through Principal… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7809 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ankur Chaudhary Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary (Home) Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Yadav,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Dhananjay Kumar,Sudhir Kumar Singh Parmar,Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Balbir Yadav,Dinesh Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 515 of 2021, under Sections 376 (2) (n), 328, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

¶7

On 9.9.2022 the following order has been passed:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ankur Chaudhary, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.515 of 2021, under Sections 376(2)(n), 328, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhelupur, District- Varanasi, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, has made a statement that there are chances of marriage of the applicant with the prosecutrix.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on Interim bail till the next date fixed 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 :-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) 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 interim bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of interim bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶16

(v) 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 interim bail and proceed

¶17

against him in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

List this case on 07.12.2022.

¶21

The applicant will file his affidavit of compliance by the next date fixed. If this order is complied by the applicant, his bail will be extended.

¶22

In failure to comply this order, the interim bail for the aforesaid period granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith."

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Vide order dated 9.9.2022, the applicant is on interim bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further submitted that as per the medical report the age of the victim is about 26 years. The applicant and victim are present before this Court and they have been identified by their counsel namely, Sri Virendra Singh Parmar and Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh. It is further submitted that the victim and applicant has solemnized their marriage. The marriage Registration Certificate has been filed as annexure no. 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed in support of bail application. It has further submitted that the applicant and victim are living as husband and wife. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on regular bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 28.10.2021.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. does not dispute with the aforesaid fact.

¶25

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for regular bail.

¶26

Interim bail granted earlier vide order dated 9.9.2022 is hereby confirmed, subject to terms and condition as imposed vide order dated 9.9.2022.

¶27

The bail application of the applicant is stands disposed off.

¶28

Order Date :- 12.12.2022

¶29

¶30

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.12 16:21:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankur Chaudhary v. the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Chaudhary v. the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home)

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

Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jaikishun Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Yagyapal @ Karua Vs State of U.P.

Kamaruddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others