Allowed

Chunnu Gond @ Swatantra Gond v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023BAIL/38468/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the applicant, who was accused of rape and cheating. Finding the victim was a major and no convincing material indicated tampering risk, the court granted bail with several conditions to appear in court and avoid harassment of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to various conditions to ensure trial proceedings.

Chunnu Gond @ Swatantra Gond Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200693

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38468 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chunnu Gond @ Swatantra Gond Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Kanojiya

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Kanojiya, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Chunnu Gond @ Swatantra Gond, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 624 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 17.07.2023 by the victim herself against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant lured the victim on the pretext of getting her employment and on false promise to marry he established physical relationship with her. On 08.07.2023 when she pressed him for marriage but he refused it and threatened her with life.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim is a major woman aged about 25 years as stated by her in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the victim was produced before the doctor although was externally examined and the doctor did not find any bodily injury on her person but she refused her internal medical examination. It is argued that the relationship between the victim and the applicant was since last two years as stated by her. The relationship was a consensual relationship. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and as such there are no chances of the applicant tampering with the evidence. He further

¶11

argued that the applicant has a criminal history of one other case which has been disclosed and explained in para 22(ii) of the affidavit wherein it is stated that although the applicant was involved in other case but the final report was submitted in his favour. The applicant is in jail since 18.07.2023.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the victim is a major woman aged about 25 years as stated by her in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It appears that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was a consensual relationship.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Chunnu Gond @ Swatantra Gond , 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:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law,

¶20

under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶21

(v) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be 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 and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chunnu Gond @ Swatantra Gond v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chunnu Gond @ Swatantra Gond 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nanka Vs State of U.P.

M/S Jaunpur Vs State

Inkar Ali Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kiran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jabar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.