Ramcharan Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13431

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 330 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramcharan Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is second bail application filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 217 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that while rejecting the 1st Bail Application No. 7180 of 2023 vide order dated 06.05.2024, this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. However, till today, even the charge has not been framed. It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and, therefore, the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent and is in jail since 02.09.2022, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that after detail investigation, sufficient evidences were found against the applicant and the charge sheet was filed against him. It is also submitted that the 1st bail application was dismissed on merit and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., application, rejection order dated 06.05.2024 and other relevant documents, it is evident that while rejecting the 1st bail application, direction was issued to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year. It is further evident that in pursuance of the earlier order dated 13.01.2025, Chief Judicial Magistrate has sent a report dated 04.02.2025, which reveals that till 04.02.2025, charge has not been framed. It is also evident that the applicant is in jail since 02.09.2022. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Application stands allowed.

¶12

Let applicant -Ramcharan Chauhan be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 217 of 2022, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his

¶17

counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶18

(v) 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. may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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.

¶20

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.3.2025 VKS

¶22

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

Ramcharan Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramcharan Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Deepak Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Soni Thru. Her Husband Ankush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Raghuvir Singh @ Bhola Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shravan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Puran Chand Sharma vs Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture U.P. Krishi Bhawan Lko. and Another