Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024BAIL/12764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HCY Court allowed bail to Neelam Kaushal in a cheating consortium case, setting aside her detention since 2022, citing parity with co-accused and severe jail overcrowding, without expressing an opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding witness intimidation, cooperation in trial, and attendance at hearings.

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83356

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12764 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 Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajnish Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

The submission is that co-accused, Dharmendra Kaushal and Vasudev Goswami @ Basudev Goswami, have already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 5887 and 11343 of 2024 on 18.9.2024 and19.11.2024 and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail for the reasons given in bail application of co-accused on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 23.4.2022.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Neelam Kaushal , involved in Case Crime No. 165 of 2020, under Sections 409,419,420,467,468,471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Baldi Rai District- Sultanpur, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two

¶11

sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

That 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;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 12.12.2024

¶20

Atul kr. sri.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ATUL 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jyoti vs State of Up and Another

Arvind Kumar Pal and Another vs State of U.P.

Amit Pratap Singh Rana vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Manju Kaushal vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manju Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.