Chandan @ Chandra Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. and 3 Others

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.167 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 342 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Makhi, District Unnao.

¶12

In the prosecution case it is alleged that minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years on the pretext of going to the shop went with someone on 03.06.2024 at about 12:30 while going away she has taken Rs.15,000/-, jhumki and tub.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The victim was having affair with the co-accused Pankaj. He submits that victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not taken the name of the applicant. However, while giving statement under section 164 CrPC, the victim has made allegation of committing rape against the applicant and another co-accused Suraj who has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 21.8.2025 passed in Bail No.10937 of 2024. No injury has been found on the internal and external examination of the victim in the medico legal examination. The applicant is in jail since 13.7.2024.

¶14

BAIL No. 955 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer but he could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶17

Perused the record.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.7.2024, having no criminal history, improvement made in the prosecution case at every stage, victim has been examined, there appears to be no chance of tampering the evidence, the co-accused named above has been granted bail, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Chandan alias Chandra Kishor be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶26

BAIL No. 955 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

(vi) 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. (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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

August 27, 2025 kkb/

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandan @ Chandra Kishor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan @ Chandra Kishor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. and 3 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

Brij Mohan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Hameed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Aman Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

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

Harishchandra @ Hari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.