Allowed

Dinesh Chauhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2023BAIL/14521/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for four applicants accused under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC in a sudden fight case. Noting no exceptional circumstances were shown by the State and relying on the principle that bail is the rule, the Court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Dinesh Chauhan, Shivanand Chauhan, Devendra Chauhan and Roshan Chauhan released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each.

Dinesh Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14521 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Chauhan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey,Padmakar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶6

Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that articulation took place between two sides as a result of same, both sides have sustained injuries and both informant as well as applicant side have lodged FIR. It is submitted that the dispute arose on sudden fight. It is further submitted that co-accused, namely, Dhurandhar Chauhan, Rajesh Chauhan and Brijesh have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 17.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14604 of 2023, copy of which has been produced for perusal. The applicants have no previous criminal history. Applicants are languishing in jail since 27.2.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶9

Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicants which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶10

It is not the case of the State that the applicants have not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶11

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been

¶12

reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

¶13

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶15

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicants- Dinesh Chauhan, Shivanand Chauhan, Devendra Chauhan and Roshan Chauhan involved in Case Crime No. 77 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Baresar, District Ghazipur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶22

5 . The applicants 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.

¶23

The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.4.2023

¶26

D. Tamang

¶27

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Chauhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chauhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Smt. Meenal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep @ Bittu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Rakesh Varma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Baby Savita Vs State of U.P.and Another

Minhaz @ Chota Vs State of U.P.