Allowed

Pradeep Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2023BAIL/20729/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the second bail application of Pradeep Chauhan who was under trial for offences including Section 307 IPC, relying on the Nijeeb judgment regarding delayed trials. The court held the applicant had made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119200

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20729 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 324, 307 of IPC, Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21360 of 2021.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that after the rejection of second bail application of the applicant on 28.09.2022 the trial commenced and during trial PW-1 Jitendra Chauhan who is the informant, PW2 Vishwajeet Chauhan (injured) and PW-3 Brajesh Chauhan (injured) were produced have not corroborated the prosecution version and have turned hostile. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to support the fact described in the FIR. It is submitted that applicant is in jail since 14.12.2020 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶12

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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.

¶14

Let the applicant Pradeep Chauhan in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶16

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Mohit

¶21

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

Pradeep Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Mujiburrehaman Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Haider Raini Vs State of U.P.

Jabbar Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.