Allowed

Golu Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023BAIL/20680/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Golu Chauhan accused of sexual offences and criminal intimidation. The court noted the unexplained delay in filing the initial inquiry application and the absence of medical evidence but found no circumstances necessitating continued custodial arrest during trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with specified conditions.

Golu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20680 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Golu Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Dhirendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for first informant.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Golu Chauhan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 217of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Khorabar, District-Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Record shows that the prosecutrix Ranju Devi (Bhabhi of applicant) initially filed an application dated 01.12.2021 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The said application came to be allowed by concerned Magistrate vide order dated 13.03.2022. Subsequent to above order dated 13.03.2022, an F.I.R. dated 14.06.2022 came to be registered as Case Crime No. 217 of 2022 under Sections, 323, 504, 506, 342, 376, 377 I.P.C., Police Station-Khorabar, District-Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid F. I.R., six persons namely Dharmveer Chauhan, Golu Chauhan, Bahadur Chauhan, Durgawati, Saroj and Sangeeta have been nominated as named accused.

¶9

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that the prosecutrix is wife of Dharmveer i.e. brother of

¶10

applicant herein. According to the prosecution story, the dispute arose with regard to additional demand of dowry. On account of above, physical and mental cruelty is alleged to have been committed upon the prosecutrix. The F.I.R. further states that husband of the prosecutrix namely Dharmveer performed unnatural conduct with the prosecutrix during the course of physical relation. As per the recital contained in the F.IR., the applicant, who is devar of the first informant/prosecutrix is alleged to have dislodged her modesty on 30.10.2021. Apart from above, various other allegations have also been made in the F.I.R.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant contends that the date of occurrence as mentioned in the F.I.R. is 30.10.2021. However the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 01.12.2021 i.e. after expiry of a period of one month from the date of occurrence. However, neither in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. nor in the statement of the first informant under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. any explanation has been offered with regard to the delay in lodging the F.I.R.. Referring to Paragraph 8 of the judgement of Apex Court in P. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 , he contends that since the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained, therefore, prosecution of applicant itself cannot be maintained. It is next contended that a purely matrimonial dispute has been dragged into criminal litigation. All the family member of the applicant have been falsely implicated. The Investigating Officer upon completion of statutory investigation has submitted the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. (charge sheet) whereby, applicant has been charged sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342, 376 I.P.C. whereas the other accused have been charge-sheeted under Section 323, 504,506, 342 I.P.C. No offence under Section 377 I.P.C. was

¶12

found to have been committed by the named accused Dharmveer. There is no medical evidence to support the prosecution story as the prosecutrix has refused for her medical examination. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that since the police report has already been submitted therefore, entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalyzed. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has merged necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial. He has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 6). Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 30.03.2023. As such, he has undergone more than three months of incarceration. He therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.

¶13

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the present bail application. They submit that applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused therefore applicant does not deserve any indulge by this Court. They have also invited that attention of the Court to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C., wherein the prosecutrix has clearly and categorically supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. On the above premise, they submit that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A., the learned counsel representing first informant, upon

¶15

consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, no such circumstance has been pointed out by learned A.G.A. necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial, the judgment of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal (supra), unexplained delay in filing the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,judgement of Suprement Court in P. Rajagopal (supra) , (Paragraph 6) but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶16

Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant -Golu Chauhan involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶19

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶21

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶23

verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison

¶24

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 YK

¶25

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

Golu Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golu Chauhan 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

Rahul Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Pranjal Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Chaurasiya @ Abhishek Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagat Narayan Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Bhadauria Vs State of U.P.

Niwas Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others