Allowed

Anil Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2019BAIL/38400/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was filed by Anil Chaudhary in connection with an offence involving cheque dishonour and forgery under IPC Sections 420, 467, and 468. The court considered the facts, allegations, and gravity of the offences before finding it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Anil Chaudhary was released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

Anil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38400 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Anil Chaudhary in connection with Case Crime No.122 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

The first information report was lodged by the complainant with the allegation that about Rs.2.50 lacs were withdrawn from her bank account by the bank officials and the report was lodged on 20.03.2008. The matter was investigated and the complainant also submitted in her statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she had given the cheque of Rs.2.50 lacs to her husband which was encashed in the name of the complainant's husband. The name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in the statement of the cashier, who had submitted that the amount was given to the applicant.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report and no assertions were made in the first information report against the applicant. He submitted that the cheque was not given in the name of the applicant. He further submitted that the cheque was issued in the name of the complainant's husband, Prashant Shah how it could be enacshed by the applicant is quite strange. He further submitted that the applicant is not the beneficiary nor any money was deposited in his bank account. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.7.2019 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Anil Chaudhary involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶16

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.10.2019

¶18

R./

Anil Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Anoop Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Minakshi Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Solanki @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Harvindra Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Gaus Vs State of U.P.

Amar Nath Sahni Vs State of U.P.