Allowed

Pramod Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023ABAIL/6456/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Pramod Chauhan facing charges under IPC in the Sonbhadra district, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding non-arrest during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending conclusion of trial upon furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions of appearance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178913

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6456 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pramod Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Omar Zamin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411, 34, 420, 120B IPC, Police Station Shaktinagar, District Sonbhadra, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 12.10.2022 by this Court and the same was extended in the added Sections 422 and 120-B IPC vide order dated 30.11.2022. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted. Learned counsel has stated that the name of the applicant has come up in the confession of the arrested co-accused person, which is not admissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The charge sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the the case under U.P. Gangsters Act has already been quashed by this Court. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶8

In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a nonbailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is

¶9

itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Pramod Chauhan involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶14

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

¶15

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;

¶16

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

¶17

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.9.2023\Shalini

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Chauhan 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

Mohammad Danish and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Porwal @ Anshu Vs State of U.P.

Kamal Singh Sirohi Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ved Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. .and Another