Allowed

Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2025BAIL/7597/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application 7597 of 2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:48506; applicant Chaudhary; Case Crime No. 71/2025; Sections 70(1), 76, 352, 351(3), 333 BNS; Police Station Nawabganj; District Bahraich; alleged molestation 18.04.2025; improvements in victim's statements; Section 180 BNSS; Section 183 BNSS; no m

What did the court decide?

Applicant Chaudhary to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 71/2025 (Sections 70(1), 76, 352, 351(3), 333 B.N.S., PS Nawabganj, District Bahraich) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each

Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48506

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7597 of 2025

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 18.04.2025 at about 11:00 p.m., owing to previous enmity, accused no. 1 entered the victim’s house and molested her. On raising an alarm, he fled after extending threats.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the victim made improvements and levelled allegations against four accused persons. In her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS, further improvements were made; however, no allegation of molestation was attributed to the applicant or co-accused Budhai. The only allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the victim. It is further pointed out that the victim refused to undergo medical examination and that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 20 days.

¶10

It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2025 without having any criminal antecedents. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the improvements made by her at every stage of the prosecution, the absence of corroborative material and the fact that the victim is a major aged about 34 years, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2025 without having any criminal antecedents, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Chaudhary involved in Case Crime NO.: 71/2025, U/S: 70(1), 76, 352, 351(3),333 B.N.S., Police Station: Nawabganj, District :Bahraich, 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:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶21

and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now 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 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

Nishant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Maynoor @ Sharukh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Singh @ Chunna Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Ashutosh Shukla @ Satyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.