Allowed

Chaman Prakash Kashyap v. State, through S.P. C.B.I. /Acb/Lucknow

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2024CRLA/170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant convicted under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sought bail under Section 389 CrPC pending appeal. Court noted he was on bail during trial without misuse and appeal unlikely to be heard soon, granted bail and stayed recovery of fine and property seizure.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail in RC No.1(A) of 2007 on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each; recovery of fine and order of seizing property stayed until further orders.

Chaman Prakash Kashyap vs State, through S.P. C.B.I. /Acb/Lucknow — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 170 of 2024 Appellant :- Chaman Prakash Kashyap Respondent :- State, Through S.P. C.B.I. /Acb/Lucknow Counsel for Appellant :- Pranjal Krishna,Anshuman Srivastava,Tanmay Krishna Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Shiv P. Shukla,Anurag Kumar Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶3

Order on bail application filed u/s 389 of Cr.P.C.

¶4

1 . Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant and the objection/ counter affidavit filed by the opposite party are taken on record.

¶5

2 . Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

¶6

3 . The appellant/applicant has been convicted under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide order dated 30.11.2023 and vide order dated 05.12.2023 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years six months with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and further undergo three months simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

¶7

4 . It is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that the appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and has never misused the liberty of bail.

¶8

5 . Considering the fact that the applicant is on bail during trial and there is no material to demonstrate that the applicant has misused the liberty of bail during trail and there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

6 . In view of the above, the present application for bail is allowed .

¶10

7 . Let the appellant/applicant Chaman Prakash Kashyap be enlarged on bail in RC No.1(A) of 2007, under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/ ACB, Lucknow subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each before the Court concerned concerned.

¶11

8 . Recovery of fine imposed by the Court below shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court. The order of seizing property shall also be remain stayed until further orders.

¶12

9 . As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial Court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.5.2024

¶14

akverma

¶15

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

Chaman Prakash Kashyap v. State, through S.P. C.B.I. /Acb/Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Prakash Kashyap v. State, through S.P. C.B.I. /Acb/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

Akbar Ali @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Karan Ojha Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Bhanu Pasi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ramji Srivastava vs State of U.P. Its Prin. Secy. Bureau of Public Enterprises Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another