Allowed

Shekhar @ Chunnu Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC14 May 2024BAIL/2174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 147, 323, 342, 386, 395, 364A and 201 IPC for a Lucknow kidnapping/extortion case. Applicant jailed over four months; FIR lodged three days after incident without explanation; co-accused already bailed. Court granted bail on principles of parity with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated bail conditions.

Shekhar @ Chunnu Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37044

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2174 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shekhar @ Chunnu Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Himanshu Tiwari,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 22.12.2023 in Case Crime No.170 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 342, 386, 395, 364A & 201 IPC, Police Station- Hasanganj, District- Lucknow.

¶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 impugned FIR, wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 29.11.2023 but the FIR has been lodged on 02.12.2023 i.e. after three days and the explanation of the aforesaid inordinate delay has nowhere been given in the FIR. Most of the Sections which have been imposed against the applicant are unwarranted, inasmuch as the ingredients of those Sections are not attracted against the applicant. The present applicant is having criminal history of one case, which has been explained in Para 11 of rejoinder affidavit.

¶10

In the present case, the co-accused persons, namely, Anurag Dwivedi and Yusuf Hussain in Criminal Misc. Bail Application

¶11

No.4286 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4821 of 2024 have been granted bail vide orders dated 19.04.2024 and 06.05.2024 respectively. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 there is delay of about three days in lodging the FIR and the delay has not been explained; the applicant is in jail for more than four months; the coaccused persons, namely, Anurag Dwivedi and Yusuf Hussain have been enlarged on bail; 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let applicant- Shekhar @ Chunnu Kumar Singh 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:-

¶16

(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

¶17

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 Code.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶24

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

Shekhar @ Chunnu Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhar @ Chunnu Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Singh @ Arman Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Parvati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Annu Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Shekhar @ Chunnu Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Abhinav Kumar @ Aashish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow