Allowed

Chitresh Alias Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025BAIL/1929/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 86, Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:60193; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1929 of 2025; decided 22.4.2025 by Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; bail allowed for Chitresh alias Chhotu in Case Crime No. 226 of 2022, Sections 307, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur; no specific allegation against applicant (single gunshot attributed to Indresh Tiwari per ar

What did the court decide?

Applicant Chitresh Alias Chhotu enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 226 of 2022 (Sections 307, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur) on a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like am

Chitresh Alias Chhotu vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60193

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1929 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Chitresh Alias Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Dube Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against one Atul Shukla and two unknown persons with the allegation that the named accused along with two unknown persons reached at the restraunt of the informant and asked for giving him keys of the restruant. When the informant denied to give the keys accused persons made fire upon the informant which hit on his leg. Learned counsel further submits that when the named accused Atul Shukla was arrested he made statement that Indresh Tiwari had made fire upon the injured/ informant and at that time the applicant was sitting on the motorcycle. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the informant/ injured and two eye witnesses namely Harsh Tripathi and Manoj in their statements have stated that fire was made upon the informant by the accused Atul Shukla. Thus, single gun shot injury suffered by the victim was caused by either Indresh Tiwari or Atul Shukla and no specific allegation has been made against the applicant. The only allegation against the applicant is that at the time of occurrence the applicant was along with the coaccused Indresh Tiwari and Atul Shukla. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the

¶8

Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 12.09.2022. As to the criminal history there are four cases into his credit in which he has already been enlarged on bail, which bail orders have been annexed in the supplementary affidavit dated 17.03.2025.

¶9

Learned A.GA. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed that no specific allegation has been made against the applicant.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed .

¶11

Let the applicant- Chitresh Alias Chhotu , be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.226 of 2022, under Sections 307, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Badlapur, District- Jaunpur, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶16

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the informant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Mustaqeem.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chitresh Alias Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitresh Alias Chhotu v. State of U.P.

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

Guddu Khan vs State of U.P.

Mohar Lal vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Sharan Mishra vs State of Up and Another

Ramveer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rihan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sazid and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another