Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024BAIL/928/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail to accused-charged under IPC Sections 409, 420, 506 for Nehakid. Court relied on settlement of dispute, payment of funds to victim, and sustained jail tenure. Order subject to personal bond with sureties and standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail by furnishing personal bond with two sureties in like amount subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses and commission of new crimes.

Shivendra Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7745

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 928 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shivendra Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, District-Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Sanat Singh,Sudhir Kumar,Suhail Kashif

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary of the case and the investigation of the case is still pending.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Shivendra Singh Chauhan for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 281 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Aliganj, District- Lucknow, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. In the first information report, it is alleged that the informant has been duped of Rs.2,47,000/- by the applicant, who at the relevant point of time was managing a company i.e., G.I.D. Housing Pvt. Ltd..

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that the F.I.R. appears to have been lodged on account of some misunderstanding, however, after lodging of the F.I.R., the applicant, who is a director of the aforesaid company, has paid Rs.2,60,000/- to the informant/ victim and the dispute has been settled. In this regard, the attention of this Court has been drawn towards an affidavit filed by the informant before the appropriate authority on 02.12.2023, wherein it is stated that she has received Rs.2,60,000/- through Cheque No.099691 of date 26.09.2023

¶12

and no dispute has remained out.

¶13

It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 21.11.2023. He is having criminal history of six cases, which are of identical nature and the same has been explained in para No.5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 23.01.2024, however, the bail applications in all the cases are pending before appropriate forums and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence.

¶15

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the applicant that after lodging of the F.I.R., a settlement has taken place between the informant and the applicant and in pursuance of the same, Rs.2,60,000/- has been paid to the informant and also the fact that the applicant is in jail in this case since 21.11.2023, the facility of bail may be extended to the applicant. Criminal history of six cases has been explained in para No.5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 23.01.2024. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and 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 of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Shivendra Singh Chauhan involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶24

If the informant feels aggrieved by any avertment made on behalf of the applicant pertaining to the settlement of the dispute or payment of Rs.2,60,000/-, she may approach this Court directly for modification or cancellation of the instant order.

¶25

Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jitendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Rauwab Ali @ Daddan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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