Raju Chauhan vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41289

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9417 of 2025

Applicant :- Raju Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Raju Chauhan , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 329 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhitauli, District Maharajganj.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:

¶10

(i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶11

(ii) The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Sunita @ Nandini Chauhan.

¶12

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Sunita @ Nandini Chauha was solemnized with Akhilesh Chauhan the son of the applicant around six months back.

¶13

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. It is submitted that the first information report is vague in as much as there is no disclosure as to what was the actual demand of dowry.

¶14

(v) The deceased committed suicide which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report, wherein, the deceased has received a single ligature mark on her body and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶15

(vi) Akhilesh Chauhan the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶16

(vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 and is in jail since 25.12.2024.

¶17

5. Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶18

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant the father-in-law of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other accused persons in the first information report. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Akhilesh Chauhan the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Let the applicant- Raju Chauhan , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶21

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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.

¶24

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 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 her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶26

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶27

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶28

The bail application is allowed .

¶29

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶30

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 AS Rathore

¶31

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shamsher vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Yaseen vs State of U.P.

Narendra Bhartiya vs State of U.P.

Vikas vs State of U.P.

Rohit vs State of U.P.

Veeru Gupta vs State of U.P.