Allowed

Anoop Kumar Chaudhari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Home Sectt. Lucknow

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024/951/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal court allowed bail to an accused appellant facing charges for cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy during trial, holding he made out a case for bail subject to furnishing bonds and sureties and complying with listed conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding cooperation, non-interference with witnesses, and no new criminal acts.

Anoop Kumar Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8281

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 951 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Chaudhari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Home Sectt. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Narayan Pandey,Ashok Kumar Singh,Niteesh Kumar 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 against the applicant in this case is still pending.

¶7

Heard Shri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, 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- Anoop Kumar Chaudhari for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 183/2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Faizabad/ Ayodhya, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and even if all the allegations which have been levelled in the FIR against the applicant are believed as they are it will emerge that the applicant was taking the protocol and other facilities to which he was not entitled being the member of Railway Advisory Board and apart from that it is also alleged that the applicant had taken money from the different persons for the purpose of procuring government job to them and with regard to that various criminal cases are shown to have been registered.

¶10

Highlighting above, it is vehemently submitted that it was on 22.10.2023, the applicant is shown to have been apprehended at Ayodhya with his gunner, driver and one another person but he was not arrested there and was asked to visit S.T.F. Headquarter on 23.10.2023 and when he appeared before the S.T.F. He was arrested without there being any incriminating material available against him, only on the basis of suspicion and

¶11

apprehension.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that gunner was provided to the applicant by the Ghaziabad Commissionrate and even if there was any misrepresentation the same might have been withdrawn and if he was not entitled for any protocol which he was using or enjoying, the same may be denied and keeping an OSD may not be termed as an offence.

¶13

It is vehemently submitted that though the applicant is having criminal history of 23 cases but the same is not having any nexus with the instant case as the instant case is with regard to enjoying the protocol, for which the applicant was not entitled. He is in jail in this case since 24.10.2023 and though it is claimed by the State that the charge sheet has not been filed but in all probability the same might have been filed having regard to the provisions contained under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., as the applicant is in jail for more than 180 days in this case.

¶14

It is also submitted that the applicant will cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial in case of any adverse police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and 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. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant is accused of taking the protocol, for which he was not entitled and he was initially apprehended on 22.10.2023 but was not arrested and was asked to visit the S.T.F. Headquarter on 23.10.2023 and he in fact appeared before the S.T.F. on 23.10.2023, on which date he was arrested. The applicant is having criminal history of 15 cases and the same has been explained in paragraph 6 of the bail application, however, in none of such case he was granted bail, as in one case he was granted bail which was cancelled subsequently on account of his arrest in the instant case as he could not appear before the trial court, as he was confined in prison. The allegation of taking illegal money from the other persons are subject matter of the other criminal cases lodged by different informants against him and has also been shown as his criminal history. In the instant case allegations are only with regard to taking protocol for which he was not entitled. The defence of the applicant appears to be that pertaining to misappropriation of money of different persons they have

¶17

lodged independent First Information Reports and all these cases are being investigated and are not subject matter of the instant case and secondly that if he was not entitled for any protocol the same might have been withdrawn and may not be subject matter of criminal prosecution. The applicant is admittedly in jail in this case since 24.10.2023.His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶18

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.

¶19

Let the applicant- Anoop Kumar Chaudhari 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 29.1.2024 Muk

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anoop Kumar Chaudhari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Home Sectt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Chaudhari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Home Sectt. Lucknow

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

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shivendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, District-Lucknow

Vishnu Pratap Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ashik Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow, U.P. and 3 Others

Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko