Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024/7694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Neelam Kaushal in an offence under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506 IPC, holding that parity with co-accused already granted bail made it a fit case for bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69833

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7694 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 Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rachit Sondhi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 668 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station PGI, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

¶8

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant, who is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, is in jail since 23.04.2022. The case of the applicant is similar to co-accused Anjani Kaushal and Smt. Manju Kaushal, who have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2023 and 18.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 7002 of 2023 and 6186 of 2024 respectively. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Photocopies of the bail order of co-accused Anjani Kaushal and Smt. Manju Kaushal provided by the learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record.

¶10

Shri Rachit Sondhi, learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but fairly concedes that similarly situated co-accused Anjani Kaushal and Smt. Manju Kaushal have already been granted bail.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for

¶12

the applicant, learned A.G.A., ground of parity with the coaccused and going through the material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail. Application stands allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let applicant -Neelam Kaushal be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 668 of 2020, on her furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶15

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏce or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229A IPC.

¶18

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A

¶19

IPC.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶21

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 VKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt.Arti and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rahul Mehta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ram Kishun Vs State of U.P.

Akhil Kumar @ Akhil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Akhil Kumar @ Akhil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko