Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 218 (ALL)

Atul v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has filed Supplementary Affidavit today in Court. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rajeev Singh learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nikhil Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicants-Atul and Brijesh are is languishing in jail since 17.12.2024 in Case Crime No. 0471 of 2024, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. 5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.), which has been lodged on 02.08.2024 of the alleged incident 28.07.2024 without explaining the delay properly. The informant is a wife of the deceased and the relation of the informant with her deceased husband were not cordial for the the last couple of years, therefore, both were living separately. As per the allegation of the F.I.R. the informant found her husband (since deceased) lying near a village Well in a critical condition and on being asked from him, he told that he consumed poison, as his younger brothers have beaten him. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since the investigation in the present case was going on under Section 108 B.N.S., however, F.I.R. was lodged under Section 105 B.N.S. and the charge-sheet has been filed under the same Section i.e. Section 108 B.N.S. must be satisfied. In the present case there is no overt or positive act of the present applicant to instigate or abet the victim to commit suicide, therefore, the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. are not being attracted in the present case, those allegations may be tested during the course of trial. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the criminal history of the present applicants have been explained in paragraph 2 of the Supplementary Affidavit indicating therein in no criminal cases against both the applicants, final report has already been filed. Except the aforesaid case, there is no other criminal case against the present applicants. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the criminal history of the present applicants have been explained in paragraph 2 of the Supplementary Affidavit indicating therein in no criminal cases against both the applicants, final report has already been filed. Except the aforesaid case, there is no other criminal case against the present applicants. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail. 9. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R.s, the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 17.12.2024 without any criminal antecedents and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicants-Atul and Brijesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicants 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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.