Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024/7355/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail application for Chaube Lal, falsely implicated in a family assault case without specific allegations. Granted bail based on parity with co-accused and lack of criminal history, subject to standard conditions including presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with furnishing of personal bond and two sureties, subject to attendance conditions and bail conduct restrictions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46550

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7355 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Chaube Lal) is languishing in jail since 06.03.2024 in Case Crime No.105 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Dhaurahara, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶10

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein general allegation of assault and beating has been attributed to the entire family of the applicant inasmuch as the accused nos. 2 and 3 are his sons and accused no.4 is his wife. No specific allegations have been levelled against any of the accused persons. He has further submitted that the statement of the complainant/informant (Annexure-5) clearly indicates that all the accused persons were having stick/cane in their hand and started beating the brother of the informant namely, Pintu, resultant thereof, he sustained serious injuries and during his treatment, he succumbed to those injuries.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and the general allegation against all the accused persons have been levelled. One co-accused having similar allegation namely, Sarita, has been granted bail. He has fairly submitted that this Court while granting bail to Sarita has specifically indicated that no co-accused may claim parity with co-accused, Sarita, who has been granted bail as she has been granted bail in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, so far as

¶12

allegations are concerned, those allegations are same. The applicant is a father of co-accused, Pradeep who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6424 of 2024; Pradeep vs. State of U.P., therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

¶13

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail since 06.03.2024; no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant; the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Sarita and Pradeep have been granted bail by this Court; undertaking of the applicant that he shall abide by all conditions of the bail order and cooperate in the trial court proceedings properly and without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I find it appropriate that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

9. Let the applicant (Chaube Lal) 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:-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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

¶19

Code.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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. The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 Suresh/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaube Lal 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

Sadat Ali Pno. No. 062121167 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Seema Pal Vs U.P. Sub Ordinate Service Selection Commission Picup Lko and Another

Mohd. Ashraf Zaki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Vikal Kumar and 309 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Affairs Lko. and 3 Others

Prashant Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development and 3 Others

Bimlesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others