Allowed

Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023ABAIL/15485/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, citing Sushila Aggarwal and allowing bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137686

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15485 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 223 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have cheated the informant by purchasing the land for constructing 70 flats on it. The construction of flats were undertaken and only 20% of work was completed till 8.5.2019, as such, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have caused heavy loss to the informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of her arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant was originally a partner in the said partnership deed but had resigned from it on 3.10.2015 and other persons had joined with the said partnership firm. The main allegation is against the co-accused person Tejveer Singh. The applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2022. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier on. In all, two FIRs have been instituted with respect to the same property.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, she will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

¶13

" Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶16

i. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

ii. that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶19

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Shalini

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Raw Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radha Charan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Masoom Ali @ Syed Masoom Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others