Allowed

Prabha Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Othres

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023ABAIL/2041/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case, citing Supreme Court directives. The applicants alleged false implication due to their relation with the main accused, who had already secured bail. The court imposed standard conditions for cooperation and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Prabha Chauhan and Kumbaj Chauhan subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Prabha Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othres — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2041 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Prabha Chauhan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Othres Counsel for Applicant :- Balbir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Balbir Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.722 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 406, 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Banna Devi, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicants and other co-accused persons are stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as an advance from the informant on the pretext of getting him a shop, which was in the name of applicant no.2. An amount of Rs.3,85,000/- was transferred through Google Pay to the account of Jaydrath Chauhan and the rest amount was given in cash.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case owing to their relation with the co-accused person Jaydrath Chauhan. The main accused is Jaydrath Chauhan, who has been enlarged on regular bail by the Sessions Judge concerned. No money has been transferred to the account of the applicants. The case of the applicants is at a different footing to the main accused person Jaydrath Chauhan. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The investigation is going on. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the fact that the amount has been transferred to the account of Jaydrath Chauhan and the applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Prabha Chauhan and Kumbaj Chauhan be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are

¶21

exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prabha Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Othres

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabha Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Othres

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

Ranjeet Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaigy Begam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Shamsher Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vikas Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neetu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another