Allowed

Ghanshyam Chandra Kaushal @ Ghanshyam Kaushal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024BAIL/12288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in Case Crime No. 495 of 2021, Ayodhya. Court granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Manju Kaushal, already bailed, subject to standard conditions including personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of like amount, subject to stated conditions.

Ghanshyam Chandra Kaushal @ Ghanshyam Kaushal Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79974

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12288 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ghanshyam Chandra Kaushal @ Ghanshyam Kaushal

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko.

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Neera Yadav

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 495 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Inayatnagar, District- Ayodhya.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he is in jail since 24.09.2024. He further submits that co-accused - Manju Kaushal, having identical role, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6565 of 2022. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail, but he conceded the fact that co-accused - Manju Kaushal has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents, bail order of the co-accused - Manju Kaushal, ground of parity as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let applicant - Ghanshyam Chandra Kaushal @ Ghanshyam Kaushal be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

With above directions, the bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Arpan

¶24

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

Ghanshyam Chandra Kaushal @ Ghanshyam Kaushal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Chandra Kaushal @ Ghanshyam Kaushal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) 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

Jay Prakash Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Saurabh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Afzal Shah and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Abdulla Khan @ Abdulla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Kant Verma vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others