Allowed

Aman Chauhan@ Aman Rana v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023ABAIL/3056/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant, who had been named during investigation but not in the FIR, granting bail till the conclusion of trial subject to standard conditions including appearance and non-interference with witnesses and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal and two sureties each.

Aman Chauhan@ Aman Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160123

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3056 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Chauhan@ Aman Rana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Jagdish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.27 of 2021, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 504, 506, 323 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, at Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Counter affidavit is already on record. Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to it.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant at the outset has stated that this is a no injury case and even the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has come up later on during investigation. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 28.3.2023 and he had not misused the said opportunity granted to him earlier on. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the

¶12

anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Aman Chauhan@ Aman Rana be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 8.8.2023 Vikas

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aman Chauhan@ Aman Rana v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Chauhan@ Aman Rana v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Pappu Pandit @ Uma Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandu @ Chand Mohd Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Pachauri Vs State of U.P.