Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024BAIL/9452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granted bail to the applicant Sumit Chauhan @ Rahul in a criminal matter involving cheating and forgery. The court noted the applicant was not named in the FIR, no funds were credited to his account, and evidence connecting him to the crime was lacking.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding witness tampering, court appearances, and mutual cooperation.

Sumit Chauhan @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83573

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9452 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sumit Chauhan @ Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 214 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, Police Station Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknnow.

¶8

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 the applicant is not named in the First Information Report and certain amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the applicant by committing cheat and fraud but no amount in question has ever been incredited in the account of the applicant, as is mentioned in Paragraph 14 and 15 of the bail application. He next submits that the police has failed to collect the cogent piece of evidence against the applicant in the instant matter. He submits that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained in Paragraph No. 16 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 24.07.2024 and he also undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the offence as he has committed cheat and fraud and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is not named in the FIR; no amount is question is ever incredited in the account of the applicant; there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant to connect him in crime; the applicant has a a case criminal history which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 24.07.2024 and he

¶11

has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(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

¶17

(4) 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. 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 him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly

¶20

confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Chauhan @ Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

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.

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

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