Allowed

Kanchanu @ Kunti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024BAIL/10994/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by Kanchanu @ Kunti in PI pending for cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust. Court found no cogent evidence against her and granted bail on personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding witness tampering and attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the specified amount.

Kanchanu @ Kunti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83452

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10994 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kanchanu @ Kunti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Akhtar Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 283 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Distric- Sitapur.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect her with the offence and he has also shown the other falsity in the story of prosecution. He submits that the applicant is a woman of 60 years of age and she has always cooperated with the investigation proceedings coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and she is languishing in jail since 02.09.2024 and she undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, she is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.09.2024; there is no cogent piece of

¶12

evidence against the applicant so as to connect her with the offence; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Kanchanu @ Kunti involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of

¶20

the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Mayank

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanchanu @ Kunti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchanu @ Kunti 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

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Sukesh Rajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Kuldeep Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sangam Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Sumit Chauhan @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ayan @ Shoeb Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko