Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12329 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko

Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,Deepak Kumar,Dileep Kumar Yadav,Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Vashu Deo Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arpit Chaudhary,Neeraj Kumar Saxena

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavits filed today are taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶9

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0377 of 2024 under Sections 118(2), 131, 351 (3) BNS, P.S. Ashiyana, District Lucknow.

¶10

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 19.10.2024 when the applicant alongwith co-accused allegedly bit off the index finger of husband of informant.

¶11

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that in fact the applicant and the husband of informant are siblings and an unnecessary altercation had occurred on the spur of moment resulting an injury to the husband of informant. It is further submitted that even otherwise the human teeth cannot be considered as a weapon as has already been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmad versus State, Delhi, (2004) 10 SCC 103. It is submitted that it is quite evident that no injury on any vital part has occurred. The applicant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 21.10.2024.

¶12

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but admits that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.

¶13

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has

¶14

specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶15

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶16

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶17

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that the aspect of injury having been caused by applicant having bitten off the finger of husband of informant which would be subject matter of evidence during trial. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmad (supra) has already held human teeth not to be a deadly weapon.

¶18

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶19

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let applicant- Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(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.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶23

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 269 BNS.

¶24

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.

¶25

(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 351 BNSS. 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.

¶26

Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Satish

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Usha Mishra ( in Fir Usha Devi ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Mohan Thakur vs Shri M. Devraj Prin Secy. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Riyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Another

Meraj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.