Allowed

Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granted bail to the applicant, Chand, a detainee under Sections 302, 201, and 364 IPC. The court granted relief based on the absence of incriminating material, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the suspicion behind the arrest, invoking principles of parity with a co-accused previously released on bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Chand was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of leaving India.

Chand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38997

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 615 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Ayoob Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 05.09.2023 in Session Trial No.2123 of 2023, Case Crime No.102 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 & 364 IPC, Police Station- Jahangirabad, District- Barabanki.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 11.04.2023 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 22.04.2023 without explaining the delay in lodging the FIR. Further, the present applicant is not named in the FIR inasmuch as the specific allegation has been levelled against three accused persons. Though during investigation, the present applicant has been implicated but as per learned counsel for the applicant, there is no cogent or relevant material or evidence suggesting the complicity of the present applicant inasmuch as nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. As per recovery memo, recovery of Sabbal (Belcha) has been made on the pointing out of Ram Naresh, accused no.1 in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused person namely, Jamal Khan, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14347 of 2023. There is no eye witness account. There is no last seen evidence. The present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel has further

¶10

submitted that the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that the present applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation he was arrested on the basis of suspicion; nothing incriminating has been recovered on the pointing out of the present applicant, rather recovery of Sabbal (Belcha) has been made on the pointing out of accused no.1-Ram Naresh; delay of eleven days in lodging the FIR has not been explained; there is no eye witness account nor there is any last seen evidence; the applicant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion; the applicant is in jail for more than eight months and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, on the basis of principles of parity, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant- Chand be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) 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. is issued and the 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, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant 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 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.

¶19

(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶20

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankush Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Anurag Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Lucknow

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shakeel Quraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Sunil Rastogi @ Sani @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko