Allowed

Shivendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024/3901/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the accused Shivendra Singh Chauhan in a cheating case under IPC Sections 409 and 420. The court required the applicant to pay the outstanding amount to victims within six months of release and imposed conditions regarding passport deposit and court appearance.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond with two sureties subject to payment of Rs. 6,33,500/- within six months and specific attendance conditions.

Shivendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29075

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3901 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shivendra Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanat Singh,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J .

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary of the case.

¶7

Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar learned counsels for the accusedapplicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Shivendra Singh Chauhan for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.378 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant being the Director of G.I.D. Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited, a land bearing Gata No.225 Minjumla measuring area 16000 square feet situated in Village Sarayan, Pargana Mohana, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow was purchased for the purpose of construction of small row houses for its customers, however, a dispute had arisen and due to ups and downs in the market, the applicant could not keep promise made with the customers of the company and it is in this regard F.I.R. of the instant case has been lodged by the depositors/customers, however, the applicant could not keep promise only on account of loss suffered by him and he undertakes that he will return the amount taken from the informant and other victims shown in the F.I.R. after adjusting the same, if any amount has been returned to them earlier.

¶11

It is further submitted that in this regard the State has shown an amount of Rs.6,33,600/-, which has remained due on the applicant to be paid to the informant and other victims of the F.I.R. and the applicant would make all out efforts and endeavour to pay this amount to the informant and other victims within six months of his release from prison.

¶12

It is also submitted that the applicant had no intention to defraud its customers and it is only on account of uncertainties of the market and the dispute arisen for the land purchased by him, the promise to pay back the amount could not be fulfilled by him.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 21.11.2023 and on the basis of identical allegations, many first information reports have been registered against the applicant, however, in four of such cases, the applicant has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by the trial court. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused persons of the alleged crime, namely, Hemant Singh and Sudhir Singh Chauhan have been released on bail by this Court, vide orders dated 25.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.902 of 2024 and 1093 of 2024, respectively.

¶14

It is next submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and the charged offences against the applicant are triable by magistrate. Learned counsel for the applicant has made a statement under instructions given by the applicant that the applicant would pay Rs.6,33600/- to the informant and other victims after adjusting any amount, which might have been earlier paid to the victims within six months from the date of his release from prison and also that he was not having any intention to defraud his customers/depositors. The applicant has already been granted bail in identical matters and

¶17

identically placed co-accused persons of the alleged crime, namely, Hemant Singh and Sudhir Singh Chauhan have been released on bail by this Court. Applicant is in jail in this case since 21.11.2023 and the criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶18

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶19

Let the accused/applicant- Shivendra Singh Chauhan involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant within six months from his release from prison shall pay Rs.6,33,500- to the informant and other victims in the proportion as shown in the F.I.R. and default of this condition alone shall be a sufficient ground for the trial court to cancel the facility of bail granted to the applicant by this Court.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the trial court, if any and will not leave the country without permission of the Court.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶23

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(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. is issued and the 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

¶25

law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶27

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

¶28

O rder Date :- 9.4.2024 Asheesh

¶29

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

Shivendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Vikaram @ Khuddi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Harivansh Kumar @ Harivansh Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Firoz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dheeraj Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.