Allowed

Pradeep @ Chhota v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023BAIL/32768/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant, Pradeep @ Chhota, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case, citing prolonged confinement, lack of early trial conclusion, and absence of reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount on specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170582

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32768 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep @ Chhota Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the informant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2023, under Sections 395, 397, 412 I.P.C., Police Station- Barhan, District- Agra during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Dharma @ Dharmendra in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. It is next contended that the co-accused Tota and Pankaj, having identical role, have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applicant Nos.28845 2023 and 29618 of 2023 vide order dated 3.7.2023 and 14.7.2023 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 20.5.2023. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made above and the fact that the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case,

¶12

I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant, Pradeep @ Chhota involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶14

i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶16

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 S.S.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep @ Chhota v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep @ Chhota 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

Monu @ Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Kamu Kuraishi Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.