Allowed

Akhilesh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2022BAIL/53504/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, and 506 I.P.C., the court allowed the applicant's prayer. Finding that a co-director and another co-accused had been granted bail and assessing the nature of allegations, the court held the applicant entitled to bail pending trial subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Akhilesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53504 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Akhilesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

1.Heard Sri Mohit Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

2.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 711 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Daurala, District Meerut.

¶6

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 29.11.2018 alleging that the informant came to know through newspapers in the year 2015 that Aarvanss Colour City Infra Private Limited was constructing flats under the Samjwadi Avas Yojna and the informant booked a flat for Rs. 8,98,500/- and she paid a total of Rs. 92,995/- on various dates between 25.06.2015 and 02.12.2015. However, when the informant reached to take possession of the flat in January 2018, the office of the company had been closed. The applicant is one of the Directors of the company.

¶7

4.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Ravi Kumar Rastogi has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 26.11.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41610 of 2020.

¶8

5.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who has already been released on bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

6.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 24.06.2022. In para-13 of the affidavit, the applicant's involvement in 59 cases has been disclosed, most of which are based on similar allegations and in most of which the applicant has been granted bail. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in

¶10

such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶11

7.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who has already been released on bail.

¶12

8.Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the grievance of the informant is that she had made a part payment for purchasing a flat from a company of which the applicant is a Director and as per the allegation levelled in the FIR, no agreement has been executed between the informant and the company and also keeping in view the fact that one of the other Directors of the company has already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail pending conclusion of the trial. The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶13

9.Let the applicant - Akhilesh Chauhan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 711 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Daurala, District Meerut on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

10.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application bail before this Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.12.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.12.09 18:56:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Chauhan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Bhuinya Vs Union of India

Satya Prakash Gaur Vs State of U.P.

Charanjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Junaid Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Sabir Vs State of U.P.