Smt. Sandhya Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Rejected anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the case involving allegations of cheating and forgery did not constitute a fit case for granting this extraordinary remedy.
What did the court decide?
Anticipatory bail rejected.
What the court decided
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13198 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Sandhya Chaudhary And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Shashank Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harsh Narayan Singh,Prashant Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
- Heard Sri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Harsh Narayan Singh, learned Counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.
- The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- Smt. Sandhya Chaudhary and Amit Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0412 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur.
- As per prosecution case, on false assurance of providing job to different persons in SBI, UBI Bank and Central Railway, present applicants Sandhya Chaudhary and Amit Kumar, in connivance with other co-accused persons named in the FIR collected about Rs.1,25,00,000/-. It is alleged in the FIR that the victims were handed over fake certificates showing that they will be given jobs in the above institutions and when the victims asked for the appointment letter, they kept on avoiding making up different stories.
- It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they were not involved in any transaction of money, no amount was transferred in their accounts; the main allegations are against other co-accused persons and they have been implicated with ulterior motives just to put pressure upon them.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery.
Whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant the exercise of discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Smt. Sandhya Chaudhary and Amit Kumar
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Jyotsna Sharma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/13198/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court