Allowed

Aman Chaddha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024ABAIL/6509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to applicant Aman Chaddha in a POCSO case where he was not originally named in the FIR and only faced allegations of being an accomplice alongside a co-accused for whom specific indecent photography charges were recorded. Bail granted with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in like amount subject to specific conditions including appearance at trial court proceedings.

Aman Chaddha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130366

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6509 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Chaddha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma,Atul Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that notice of the instant application has been served upon the opposite party no. 4- informant as well as upon the opposite party no. 3- Child Welfare Committee, Prayagraj on 06.07.2024 and 05.07.2024 respectively. The receiving endorsements as produced by the learned A.G.A. are taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 257 of 2024, under Sections 354, 389, 411, 120-B I.P.C. and 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case owing to certain other disputes between the parties. In the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. specific allegation of taking indecent photographs and recording video has been assigned to the named co-accused Ambuj Singh Patel. The only allegation against the applicant is that he accompanied the named co-accused Ambuj Singh Patel. No indecent photograph or video was collected by the Investigating Officer. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of the named co-accused. He further submits that the investigation is still pending. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is released on

¶10

anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, and, in particular, the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report, in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. specific allegation of taking indecent photographs and recording video has been assigned to the named co-accused Ambuj Singh Patel and the only allegation against the applicant is that he accompanied the named co-accused Ambuj Singh Patel, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Aman Chaddha involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶15

(ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court;

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court;

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant;

¶19

(vi) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98; and,

¶20

(vii) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶22

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶23

The application stands disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 SKT/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aman Chaddha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Chaddha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra vs State of U.P. and Another

Suryabhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir vs State of U.P.

Anas vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of U.P.