Chandrabhan Sharma @ Chanda vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 89 of 2025 Appellant :- Chandrabhan Sharma @ Chanda Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶4

(Order on Appeal)

¶5

List in due course.

¶6

(Order on C.M.A./01/2024)

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been filed by the appellant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 1553 of 2014 u/s 395 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., 397, 328, 412, 436 I.P.C., Police Station- Bangarmau, District- Unnao.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case and he was on bail during the course of trial. He further submits that T.I. parade was not conducted during the course of investigation and learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct perspective. He also submits that similarly situated persons, namely, Manvendra @ Munnu Thakur, Saurabh Yadav, Montu @ Tarun Bangali and Banwari Lal have already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Appeals Nos. 229 of 2025, 4040 of 2024, 214 of 2025 and 67 of 2025, respectively. He next submits that the appeal is already admitted and in the near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of appeal, therefore, the appellant who does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 10.12.2024 is also entitled for bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant, but he does not dispute this fact that the aforesaid persons are also convicted in the case in question alongwith the appellant and they are on bail in the pending appeals.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that other similarly situated persons have already been enlarged on bail in the pending appeals. Therefore, appellant is entitled to be

¶12

released on bail.

¶13

Hence, prima facie, case for bail is made out, at this stage.

¶14

Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed .

¶15

Let the appellant- Chandrabhan Sharma @ Chanda involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The appellant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶17

(ii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.6.2025/Satish

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandrabhan Sharma @ Chanda v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Sharma @ Chanda v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Parimal Gharoja and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satya Prakash Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Amit @ Prabhakar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Tej Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Banvari Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Umesh @ Robin vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko