Allowed

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023ABAIL/10910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal complaint case involving sections 323, 395, 504, and 506 IPC. Release was conditional upon furnishing a personal bond and adhering to specific directions from the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail conditioned upon a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and adherence to specific conduct conditions.

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190056

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10910 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Complaint Case Crime No.541 of 2019, under Sections 323, 395, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dholna, District Kashganj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. As per version of the impugned complaint case, the applicant and other co-accused persons armed with lathi, danda and counter made pistol with the intention to kill, opened fire upon the informant and snatched Rs.45,000/- from the pocket of the informant. He further submits that the informant was not medically examined and there is no medical report. He further submits that on the basis of statement of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant was summoned although there were several material contradictions in their statements. He further submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 24.02.2014 whereas the impugned complaint has been lodged on 26.03.2014. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Surjan Singh @ Nekse Lal has alreaye been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.10855 of 2023. The applicant is having no previous criminal history. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal, involved in the aforesaid complaint case be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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 or to any police officer.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶16

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶17

(vi) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶18

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public

¶19

Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Ajeet

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Ajay Thakur @ Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saroj Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another