Allowed

Sunil Kumar @ Chhota v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2023BAIL/47160/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application where the applicant, accused under sections 323, 326, 504, 506 IPC, alleged false implication and delay in FIR. The court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits due to no criminal history and pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to standard and specific conditions.

Sunil Kumar @ Chhota Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223649

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47160 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar @ Chhota Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh K.S. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh K.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2023, under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Godha, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken five years old son of the informant on the pretext of playing with him and had inserted his hand on chaff cutter whereby three of the fingers of his right hand got amputated.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations are per se false. The son of the informant was playing in the house of the applicant and had accidentally sustained injuries.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.06.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the 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- Sunil Kumar @ Chhota, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

v. 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

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

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Order Date :- 24.11.2023 Siddhant

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kumar @ Chhota v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar @ 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhura Alias Taseen Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Prem Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Aamir @ Rafey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Meraj Ahmad Vs State of U.P.