Rinku Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28360

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1697 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rinku Chaurasiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Kumar Verma,Vivek Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

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

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 269 of 2024 under Section 118(2), 351(2) and 352 BNS, Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

¶9

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 31st December, 2024 when the applicant allegedly attacked and bit off the right ear of the informant's son due to an altercation which occurred as a result of accident between the vehicle of informant's son and the bicycle of the applicant.

¶10

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him and would indicate at best a case of road rage with altercation ensuing on the spur of moment without any premeditation. He has also placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmed versus State, Delhi, 2004 (10) SCC 103 in which human teeth has been held not be a deadly weapon coming within purview of Section 326 IPC. It is submitted that applicant without criminal history is under incarceration since 31st December, 2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the injury report clearly indicates applicant has been instrumental in causing grievous injury to the informant's son. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that altercation had taken place on the spur of moment due to an accident between vehicles of parties. The aspect of human teeth not coming within purview of a deadly weapon under Section

¶13

326 IPC would require consideration in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant admittedly does not have any previous criminal history.

¶14

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

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let applicant Rinku Chaurasiya 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:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 269 BNS.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 prabhat

¶25

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

Rinku Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Reena Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohammad Gofran @ Gufran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Aftab Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Kumar Singh @ Rajwal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mukesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.