Allowed

Sukh Sagar Chauhan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024/346/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 419, 420, 452, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and relevant IT Act provisions, the High Court released the applicant on bail citing the delay in framing charges and the earlier grant of bail to a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to six specific conditions regarding conduct, evidence tampering, and court appearances.

Sukh Sagar Chauhan Vs the State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27797

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 346 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sukh Sagar Chauhan Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Upadhyay,Ravi Shanker Singh,Shivendra S Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 28 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 452, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 43, 66, 66-C Information Technology Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case as some money was transferred in his account, but he was under impression that the said money was transferred by his brother related to some business transaction and this fact came into his notice that the money was not transferred by his brother, then he immediately tried to inform to the authorities about the same. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the applicant for transferring the money in his account and first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 07.02.2023 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14519 of 2022 with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, but till today the charge has not been framed. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 21.10.2022, he does not have any criminal antecedent and he will cooperate in the proceeding of trial. He also submits that co-accused person, namely, Umesh Kumar Giri has already been granted bail vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3387 of 2023, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. He submits that first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit. However, he does not dispute the fact

¶10

that co-accused, namely, Umesh Kumar Giri has already been enlarged on bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the bail application, F.I.R., first bail rejection order, as well as other enclosures; it is evident that a direction was given by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, but till today the charge has not been framed and co-accused, namely, Umesh Kumar Giri has already been enlarged on bail. Thus, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sukh Sagar Chauhan who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2)

¶19

framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 Arpan

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sukh Sagar Chauhan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukh Sagar Chauhan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Nirmala Vs Dr. Vineeta, District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi and Another

Taufeek Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

M/S A.K. Construction Thru. Propietor Ashok Kumar Singh Distt. Ambedkar Nagar vs Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Distt. Ambedkar Nagar

Sukh Sagar Chauhan vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Mahipal Sharma vs Dr. Balkar Singh, M.D., U.P. Jal Nigam Lko.

Suresh Chandra Yadav vs Shri. Ashok Kumar Meena, Superintendent of Police, Distt. Shahjahanpur