Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 May 2024BAIL/5145/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J. allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application by Neelam Kaushal, holding she is entitled to bail on grounds of parity as co-accused were already enlarged on bail, subject to standard bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each amount, subject to non-tampering with evidence and appearing for trial.

Neelam Kaushal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40141

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5145 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 Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kishor Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, the learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.459 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., registered at Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Ram Gopal Gupta and Vishnu Gupta have been enlarged on bail by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 14, and Court No. 19, Lucknow itself by means of the order dated 19.12.2020 and 06.05.2023 passed in Bail Nos.6533 of 2020 and 3366 of 2023. It is further submitted that co-accused Ashish Tiwari and Smt. Manju Kaushal have been enlarged on bail by means of an orders dated 21.08.2023 and 22.12.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10383 of 2023 & 15427 of 2023 respectively. He, therefore, submits that the applicant may also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's criminal history

¶10

of 49 cases of similar nature has been disclosed in para 23 of the affidavit, in 30 of which the applicant has been granted bail.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that four co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Session Court and the applicant has been granted bail in 20 other cases of similar nature, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity in the aforesaid crime.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Smt. Neelam Kaushal be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 Pradeep/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyamu Alias Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Ram Harish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue,Lko. and 6 Others

Syed Mohammad Taj Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

M/S Aravali Infra Developers,Bahraich Thru. Proprietor Farhan Shavez Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Finance, Lko. and 2 Others