Allowed

Sudhir Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application by an accused charged under Sections 409, 420, and 506 IPC for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court held that the applicant made out a case for bail and released him on a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation and no tampering with witnesses.

Sudhir Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3645

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 398 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sudhir Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and investigation in this case is pending.

¶7

Heard Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the accused/applicant 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- Sudhir Singh Chauhan for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 281/2023, under Sections 409, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The allegations in the First Information Report are to the tune that despite receiving Rs 2,60,000/- from the informant neither the house was provided to the informant nor her money was returned.

¶10

While drawing the attention of this Court towards the bank account it is submitted that Shivendra Singh Chauhan who has been shown as the Managing Director of the GID Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has now issued a cheque in favour of the informant and the said amount has been received by her as she has acknowledged the same in the affidavit given to the Assistant Commissioner of the Police, Lucknow on 26.9.2023, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.4 (paper No. 26 of the paper book). It is also submitted that identically placed co-accused Hemant Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 4.1.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15360 of 2023.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and it appears that on account of some

¶12

misunderstanding the First Information Report was lodged. The criminal history of 5 more cases which have been registered after registration of the instant case, has been explained in para no. 25 of the bail application. Applicant is in jail since 24.11.2023. There is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected from the record that after lodging of First Information Report an affidavit has been given by the informant to the Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow, wherein she has acknowledged that she has received a cheque bearing No. 099691 of date 26.09.2023 of the amount Rs. 2,60,000/- and in this regard copy of bank statement of Shivendra Singh Chauhan, who is shown to be the Managing Director of Company, and was also named in the FIR, is also highlighted in order to show that the amount allegedly given by the informant has been received by her. The applicant is in jail in this case since 24.11.2023 and criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

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 and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Sudhir Singh Chauhan involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and shall remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence would be required.

¶18

(ii)The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

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

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.1.2024

¶25

Shravan

¶26

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

Sudhir Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Hashim @ Baggha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Dist. Lko

Ravi Pratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rasool Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Jaswant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Mithlesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.