Allowed

Shri Ram Chauhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2023ABAIL/5192/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by applicants accused of cheating and forgery. The court released them on bail with conditions including appearance in trial, no tampering with evidence or witnesses, and permission for travel, relying on Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Release of the accused-applicants on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each under specific conditions.

Shri Ram Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107007

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5192 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shri Ram Chauhan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arunesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

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

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.240 of 2022, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC at Police Station- Jatahan Bazar, District Kushinagar with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, applicant no.2 Mukesh @ Niranjan is said to have purchased a land for a consideration of Rs.4 lakhs from the informant. The applicants and other co-accused persons are stated to have got the said amount withdrawn from the bank of the informant in several transactions by committing forgery.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is a civil suit pending in court for cancellation of the said sale deed. Learned counsel has further stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that either of the applicants have withdrawn the said amount from the bank as it could only be withdrawn by the informant. 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. The criminal history of two cases assigned to applicant nos.1 and 2 stands explained. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. 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

¶11

cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶13

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.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Shri Ram Chauhan, Mukesh @ Niranjan, Prem @ Phool Badan and Naresh 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶25

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

Shri Ram Chauhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram Chauhan and 3 Others 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

Imran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chetan Swaroop Alias Chetanya Swaroop Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khurshid Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tareekh Jafari@ Saiyad Tarif Jafri Vs State of U.P.