Allowed

Anurag Chaturvedi @ Bhodu and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2023BAIL/7510/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for three applicants involved in a criminal case alleging an attack. Despite the serious nature of the offence, the Court granted bail citing jail overcrowding, uncertainties in the investigation, and the fundamental right to speedy trial, without opining on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding presence in court, witness tampering, and attendance for recording statements.

Anurag Chaturvedi @ Bhodu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 15.03.2023 Delivered On:- 20.03.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7510 of 2023 Applicant :- Anurag Chaturvedi @ Bhodu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Shankar Mishra Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶4

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

There is allegation in the FIR that the husband of the informant has a bolero car and by driving the same he survives. On 12.11.2022 at about 6:00 pm some persons came to her house and asked her husband to come with them in his bolero car since they have to admit a woman in hospital for delivery of child but thereafter he did not returned then FIR was lodged on the next day at 11 hours.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR was delayed for about 11 hours, the husband of the informant was recovered in his car along with two co-accused persons. The allegation that the applicant and other co-accused tried to crush the husband of informant under the car is not correct. There is no independent witness of recovery of the victim nor any recovery of any incriminating weapons from the applicants. They are languishing in jail since 14.11.2022.

¶7

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant. He has submitted that the alleged offence took place on 12.11.2022 and the injury report of the injured was prepared on

¶8

¶9

14.11.2022 wherein five injuries caused by her and blunt object was found. He has further submitted that the submissions of the counsel for the applicant that there was no recovery of any weapon from the applicants is incorrect. The applicant no. 1, Anurag Chaturvedi @ Bhodu and applicant no. 2, Suraj, have been implicated in two cases of Arms Act. There is false averments made in the bail application in this regard.

¶10

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that none of the parties have filed the medical report of the injured. Even in the bail rejection order of the Court below there is no finding regarding nature of injury suffered by the applicant. The victim was recovered in his car along with co-accused and it is not clear why the accused persons did not elope with the car if they intended to loot the same or intended to cause injury to the injured.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicants being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants, Anurag Chaturvedi @ Bhodu, Suraj and Vinod Kumar @ Neta, involved in Case Crime No. 235 of 2022, under Sections-

¶13

¶14

147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 398, 342, 365, 400, 34 IPC, Police StationSujanganj, District- Jaunpur, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(v) The applicants shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶20

¶21

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 20.03.2023

¶24

Rohitss

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anurag Chaturvedi @ Bhodu and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Chaturvedi @ Bhodu and 2 Others 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

Sushma Vs State of U.P.

Sohil Sisodiya Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Isha Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu Awasthi @ Badelala and Another Vs State of U.P.

Atul Uraf Aahu Vs State of U.P.