Satish Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36357 of 2025

Satish Kumar Chaubey

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Divyanshu Chaudhary, Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 70

¶8

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

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

¶11

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Satish Kumar Chaubey seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2024, under Sections 409, 420, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence of forgery or misappropriation of funds against the informant as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 24.5.2025. It is submitted that the applicant was working as Chartered Accountant in the company of informant and as per the FIR the role of applicant is only of giving advice to the informant regarding investment in a firm Balaji Electronic India in which the applicant himself has invested an amount of Rs.1 crore 72 lakhs. It is further submitted that the applicant and his wife has also filed a complaint case under section 138 of N.I. Act in the court of A.C.J.M. Court No.4, Varanasi against Tribhuwan Narain Tiwari, owner of Balaji Electronic India. It is argued that the applicant is not the actual beneficiary of the so called fraudulent transaction and no reliable evidence has been collected during the course of investigation as to how much amount has been misappropriated by

¶13

BAIL No. 36357 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

the applicant in this case. 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.

¶16

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the FIR has been registered in this case on 7.10.2024 but the investigation is going on and charge-sheet has not yet been filed in this case.

¶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 the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and 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 personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 IPC/269 BNS.

¶21

(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 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails 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 IPC/209 of BNS.

¶22

BAIL No. 36357 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

(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 of 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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

October 17, 2025 RA

¶28

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Kumar Chaubey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Chaubey 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