Chedalal Anuragi vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Chedalal Anuragi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2006, under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Attara, District Banda during pendency of trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., which was registered in the year 2016, against six persons namely Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Ram Chandra Gupta, Rahul, Rajesh Gupta, Pintu and Ajay. He further submits that initially accused applicant was witness of the prosecution, during the course of investigation, the name of accused applicant was surfaced on the false information give to police authority, in the year 2018, and the role and involvement of the accused applicant is said to have open account in the name of Ram Chand Gupta and Ramesh Gupta in order to increase the account holders' in the bank. He further submits that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the year 2025 against the accused applicant Cheda Lal under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and cognizance has been taken by the concerned C.J.M. He further submits that applicant has not misappropriated any fund/ amount from the informant or the concerned Bank or by any customer of the Bank. He further submits that a concocted and false

¶13

BAIL No. 28945 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that named co-accused Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Gupta @ Pintu have already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2022, 10.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22460 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4610 of 2022, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submits that one criminal case has been registered in the year 2006 against the accused applicant in Case Crime No. 182 of 2006, under section 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 201 & 120-B I.P.C. against which applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21038 of 2018 for protection and vide order dated 03.08.2018 arrest stay was granted by the Division Bench in this matter. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 14.07.2025.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶17

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 uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶18

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials 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 a personal bond and two sureties

¶19

BAIL No. 28945 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶22

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

¶23

(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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶25

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶26

(v) 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./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

October 30, 2025 Bhanu

¶30

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chedalal Anuragi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chedalal Anuragi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra Katiyar vs State of U.P.

Vakil Nishad vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Kumar Mahaur vs State of U.P.

Sukkhan Alias Sukka Alias Shamim vs State of U.P.

Vivek Gupta vs State of U.P.

Sangeeta Devi vs State of U.P.