Allowed

Chandrashekhar Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025BAIL/1068/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by an accused charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC for executing sale deeds impersonating Tulsiram alias Nathu. Court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering and adjournment-seeking, without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial conduct and non-tampering.

Chandrashekhar Chaudhary vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1068 of 2025

¶2

Chandrashekhar Chaudhary

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alauddin, Fakhruddin Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Chandrashekhar Chaudhary seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.191 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any fraud. He further submitted that first information report was registered by Vinod Kumar, Sub Registrar, Mehdawal. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He was worker in the R.O. plant of co-accused Prabhat Singh. Learned counsel for the applicant admits the fact that the applicant has executed two sale deeds in favour of Radheyshyam, Pateshwari and Hakikullah in the name of Tulsiram alias Nathu as imposter. He admits the fact that no documents have been prepared by the applicant. Prabhat Singh is the first witness of both the sale deeds. Both sale deeds have been executed at the very same day. It is argued that co-accused Santosh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44338 of 2024. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 18.09.2024. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant

¶11

BAIL No. 1068 of 2025

¶12

¶13

by contending that the applicant is the main person who has executed sale deed as imposter as Tulsiram alias Nathu. He is the actual beneficiary of so called transaction. It is argued that since the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating/pressurizing the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SSC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶18

(iv) 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶19

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

December 2, 2025 Asha

¶23

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrashekhar Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

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

Akash Kumar @ Rajkumar @ Kallu Katheriya vs State of U.P.

Sonu Alias Munavvar vs State of U.P.

Chandrashekhar Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Sangam Yadav Alias Shubham vs State of U.P. and 3 Others