Biru Chauhan Vs State of U.P Thru.Prin, Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6283 of 2024

Biru Chauhan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P Thru.Prin, Secy. Secretariat Lko. And 4 Others	Home Civil		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Palak Jawa, Prashant Shuk	Akshay la	Kumar Singh,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Mohd Shashendra Pr	Hidayat atap Singh	Ullah Ansari,

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the complainant is not present.

¶11

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant Biru Chauhan, who is involved in F.I.R./Case Crime No.164 of 2022, under Sections 323, 376, 452 I.P.C., Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-PGI, District-Lucknow.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first bail application was rejected on 27.7.2023 and thereafter the fact witnesses have been examined and the Investigating Officer of the case is also examined. However, the application for cross examination of the Investigating Officer filed by the applicant was allowed on 15.4.2025. The order sheet which is filed along with the supplementary affidavit indicates that the Investigating Officer is not turning up. It has been submitted that once the fact witnesses have been examined, there is no question of tempering the evidence and threatening the witnesses because only formal witnesses are to be examined. He has further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 24.3.2022 and

¶13

BAIL No. 6283 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

more than three and a half years have passed. He submits that on the point of long incarceration, the case of the applicant is liable to be considered. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 , and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2021 SCC Online 3606. Para 4 of the judgment in Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) is quoted below:

¶16

"4. On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court."

¶17

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no possibility of trial being concluded in near future and looking to the long incarceration of the applicant, he may be granted bail. He submits that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that once the prosecutrix has given her statement that the applicant has committed sexual offence, then single testimony of the prosecutrix can be sufficient for making out a case against the applicant. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant is in jail since 24.3.2022.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the applicant is in jail for the last more than three and a half years and the case of the applicant is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶20

Let applicant- Biru Chauhan be released on bail in the aforesaid F.I.R./case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of

¶21

BAIL No. 6283 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

justice:-

¶24

(1) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(2) 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 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.

¶26

(3) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶27

(4) The applicant will not indulge in any illegal activities during the period of bail.

¶28

(5) In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶29

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶30

October 29, 2025 Sachin

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Biru Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru.Prin, Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biru Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru.Prin, Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko. and 4 Others

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

Sahil Minhaj Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bajrang Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 10 Others

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Lavkush Shukla and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another