Monto Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125951

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20051 of 2025

Applicant :- Monto Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Akshay Pratap, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Piyush Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act and Sections 467, 468, 465, 419, 420 IPC Police Station- Naini, District- Yamunanagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 after considering the fact that from two vehicles 80 Kg. ganja was recovered and in one of the vehicles applicant was also sitting but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that along with applicant, co-accused Sandeep and Bheemsen were also apprehended and after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, they have been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 6 of the affidavit. He further submitted that case of applicant is at par with them and, therefore, applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.01.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the possession of applicant and others commercial quantity of ganja was recovered, therefore, his first bail application was rejected by this Court but could not dispute the fact that along with applicant co-accused Sandeep and Bheemsen were also apprehended and after rejection of first bail application of applicant, co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to enlarge them on bail. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that from the possession of applicant and others commercial quantity of ganja (80 Kg.) was recovered but it reflects, along with applicant, co-accused Sandeep and Bheemsen were also apprehended with similar allegation and after rejection of first bail application of the applicant, both have been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and case of applicant is at par with them.

¶13

The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that-

¶14

"Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."

¶15

Therefore, from the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil(supra) , it is crystal clear that all the accused persons should be treated equally and on the ground of parity itself an accused can be released on bail.

¶16

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.01.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case

¶18

discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Monto Singh Chauhan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 KK Patel

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monto Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monto Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

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