Allowed

Mohit Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023BAIL/21113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail was granted in a case under Section 306 IPC where the applicant was accused of abetting suicide by instigation. The court allowed bail noting the lack of evidence on record regarding immediate instigation, the petitioner's four-month incarceration, and the delay in the police report, despite objections regarding his criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to prevent abuse and ensure future attendance in court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140616

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21113 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohit Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Devesh Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for first informant.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Mohit Chauhan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2023, Section 306 IPC, Police Station- Tappal, District Aligarh during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 8.3.2023, a delayed F.I.R. dated 9.3.2023 was lodged by first informant Sushil Kumar Sharma (father of deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 94 of 2023, Section 306 IPC, Police Station- Tappal, District Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. the applicant Mohit Vhauhan, Jyoti and Satveer have been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶9

The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that on account of conduct of present applicant, the deceased i.e. daughter of first informant committed suicide. The F.I.R. further records that other two co-accused connived with the applicant in molesting the daughter of first informant. Apart from above, the named accused Mohit Chauhan is also alleged to have gone to the marital home of the deceased and defamed her.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Allegations made in the F.I.R. are by themselves insufficient to hold that the deceased committed suicide on account of conduct of applicant. It is next contended that offence complained of against applicant has to be judged in the light of the provisions contained

¶11

in Section 306 IPC readwith Section 107 IPC. However, from the perusal of the F.I.R. or the statements of witnesses recorded upto this stage it cannot be inferred that applicant has abeted, instigated or conspired in the crime in question. There is nothing on record upto this stage to show that deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant either. The F.I.R. was lodged on 9.3.2023. Applicant is in custody since 10.3.2023. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than four months has rolled by, the Police report has not been submitted.

¶12

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 jail since 10.3.2023. As such he has undergone more than four months of incarceration. However, upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.

¶13

The learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Devesh Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for first informant, have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that in view of checkered history of applicant, instigation can be inferred against applicant by his own conduct. The details of the same are as under:

¶14

(1) Case Crime No. 71 of 2023, under section 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act at Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh.

¶15

(2) Case Crime NO. 25 of 2022, under section 498 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Jahagirpur, District Bulandshahr.

¶16

(3) Complaint Case No. 37 of 2022 (Smt. Vidhi Vs. Mohit and 2 others) pending before Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandhahr.

¶17

Apart from above cases, learned A.G.A. submits that there is another case pending against applicant i.e. Case Crime No. 445 of 2020, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh.

¶18

On the above premise, they therefore submit that applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The deceased was young girl aged about 17 and 1/2 years. As per recital contained in F.I.R. the deceased has committed suicide on account of conduct of applicant. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, they could not dislodge the factual and

¶19

legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶20

In rejoinder, the learned counsel for applicant contends that criminal history of applicant has been substantially, explained in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as the complicity of applicants and accusation made coupled with the fact that up to this stage, prima facie no such material has emerged on the basis of which it can be definitely concluded that the applicant has abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of alleged crime, the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant, the various submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant, could not be dislodged by learned A.G.A. or the learned counsel for first informant with reference to the record at this stage, nor they could point out any such circumstances necessitating custodial arrest of applicant durin pendency of investigation the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal (Supra) , the period of incarceration undergone, and also the fact that though the applicant is in custody the police report has not yet been submitted even after expirty of four months as per the submission of learned A.G.A. that investigation is still pending, but without making any comment on the merit of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶22

Accordingly the bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicants Mohit Chauhan , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶24

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶25

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST

¶26

HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶27

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶28

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶29

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶30

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶31

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Arshad

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit 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

Farooq @ Asghar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhakalu @ Laxmi Prasad Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Patel Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakas @ Shani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others