Allowed

Kanhaiya Kaushal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022/1941/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a bail application in a cheating case, the Court held that the applicant was not a director, promoter, or account handler and had invested funds in the defrauded company. Considering the motive was missing and co-accused were on bail, the applicant was released on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Kanhaiya Kaushal was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and witness tampering.

Kanhaiya Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1941 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kanhaiya Kaushal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Prashansa Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 665 of 2020, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police StationKotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. Further added that the applicant was not involved in committing the alleged offence. The applicant is neither Director nor promoter nor signatory authority of the accounts of the company in question. The applicant is himself a victim as he and his family members have deposited a huge amount in the company and that was duped by the persons, who were running the company. Certain other F.I.Rs. arising out of the same offence have been lodged against the applicant. Apart from that, there is no any F.I.R. lodged for other separate incident or offence. The applicant is a law abiding citizen. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that applicant has no criminal history except the seven cases which pertains to same fraud played/committed with the investors by the aforesaid company and till date applicant has not been enlarged on bail by the court concerned and even number of cases are not known exactly by the applicant. He further submitted that identically situated coaccused Kanhaiya Lal Gupta @ Kanhaiya Kaushal and Ram Gopal Gupta have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court on 2.3.2022 and 24.2.2022 passed in

¶8

Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 1945 of 2022 and 1802 of 2022 respectively. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.11.2020. In case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that there are number of criminal history against the applicant and he was involved in committing the offence but he could not dispute the fact that identically situated aforementioned co-accused have been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is evident that the present applicant is neither director nor promoter of the company; he was never handling or operating the bank account of the company; and, as such, he was not involved in committing the alleged offence. Further, identically situated co-accused have been enlarged on bail. Huge amount is also said to be deposited by the present applicant and family members in the said company and, as such, at the first instance, motive of the applicant for committing said fraud or cheat is missing.

¶11

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Kanhaiya Kaushal involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶15

when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 Penal Code;

¶16

(3) The applicant 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

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

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 S. Shivhare

¶21

Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.10.22 16:09:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanhaiya Kaushal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Kaushal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Mohd. Ajaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Gaytri Shukla Vs State of U..P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Nitendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home Lko.

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Amar Nath Dwivedi (in Person) Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Basic Education Lucknow and Ors.