Allowed

Neelam Kaushal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024/7262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court enlarged the accused Neelam Kaushal on bail in a cheating case alleging investment fraud. The bench held that since she was neither a director nor an agent of the implicated company, she should be released.

What did the court decide?

Accused Neelam Kaushal released on bail via personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and appearing for trial.

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47457

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7262 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neelam Kaushal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kishor Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ajay Kishor Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Abhishek Kumar, the learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No. 327 of 2022, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 05.11.2022 against one person namely, Durgesh Kumar, alleging that the accused persons induced the informant and various other persons for making investment in Eye Vision India Credit Cooperation Society Limited/Anee Bullion and Industries Private Limited and the amount invested was not refunded.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither a Director nor Agent nor worker of the company. It is further submitted that the name of the present applicant is wrongly implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that cheating has been caused by the Director of the Company. It is also submitted that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail she shall not tamper with the evidence or misuse the liberty of bail and will also cooperate in the trial proceedings. Applicant's criminal history of 49 cases has been disclosed in para 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, in 35 of which he has been granted bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that applicant is neither Director nor Agent nor worker of the company and without expressing any opinion on

¶11

the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶12

The bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant- Neelam Kaushal be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 12.7.2024 -Amit K-

¶18

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

Neelam Kaushal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Kaushal 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

Similar cases

Kaushalendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Empowerment, Persons With Disabil. and Ors.

Vakeel Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Siraj Ahmad and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Birendra Swaroop Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow