Vishal Rao Chandel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18833

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8977 of 2024

Applicant :- Vishal Rao Chandel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Pratap Singh,Brij Mohan Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Kumar Trivedi,Shobhit Nigam

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1-State as well as Mr. Shobhit Nigam learned counsel for complainant and perused the record.

¶9

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 309 of 2023 under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow.

¶10

As per contents of FIR, the applicant is Director of Stallion Infra Built induced the informant to invest in his company without any return thereto. It is also averred that in lieu of such investment subsequently a sale deed was executed in favour of informant, which however turned out to be forged.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and in fact every effort was being made to return the investment of the informant. It is submitted that the applicant and the informant even otherwise have orally entered into compromise and in pursuance of which supplementary affidavit has been

¶12

filed today with regard to conditions indicated in paragraph 10 thereof which are as follows:-

¶13

"10. That as such after conversation the complainant is agreed and is following terms and conditions regarding the amount 33,50,000/- which was deposited in the account of the company in the directorship of the applicant.

¶14

a. If the applicant is released on bail by this Hon'ble Court then the applicant will pay 2 lakh rupees in the month of June 2025.

¶15

b. That after end of the June 2025 start from July 2025 till 31 December 2025 the applicant will pay 8,50,000/- Lakh of rupee to the complainant in 3 installments in the gap of 2 month per installment.

¶16

c. The rest of the amount i.e. 23,00,000/- Lakh of Rupee the applicant will pay to the complainant in the time period of 1 January 2026 to 31st of the December 2026 in the 6 installments in the gap of 2 month per installment.

¶17

i. That on his own part the applicant submits that during the payment of rupees 23 Lakhs since 1st of January 2026 and till the 31st of December 2026 in the meantime if any huge amount obtained by applicant during this payment he will pay the rest amount before 31st of December 2026 honestly without any cleverness.

¶18

11. That the applicant is assuring to this Hon'ble Court that he will not go to out of India without the permission of the court concerned."

¶19

Learned counsel for complainant on the basis of instructions submits that parties have orally entered into compromise but since the informant is currently outside India being a Merchant Navy Officer and will continue to remain so for next three months, the conditions in supplementary affidavit filed today by applicant be adhered to.

¶20

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶21

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶22

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶23

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged and and the aspect that the applicant is under incarceration since 2nd June, 2024 with his previous criminal history being explained in paragraph No.27 of the affidavit filed in support of application, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶24

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let applicant Vishal Rao Chandel involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are

¶26

being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶27

(i) 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.

¶28

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶29

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

(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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶31

(v). That the applicant will pay rupees two lakh in the month of June 2025.

¶32

(vi). That after end of the June 2025 start from July 2025 till 31 December 2025 the applicant will pay 8,50,000/- Lakh of rupee to the complainant in 3 installments in the gap of 2 month per installment.

¶33

(vii). The applicant will pay rest of the amount i.e. Rs.23,00,000/- to the complainant in the time period of 1 January 2026 to 31st of the December 2026 in the 6 installments in the gap of 2 month per installment. (viii). That on his own part the applicant as per his submission during the payment of rupees 23 Lakhs since 1st of January 2026 and till the 31st of December 2026 in the meantime if any huge amount obtained by applicant during this payment he will pay the rest amount before 31st of December 2026 honestly without any cleverness.

¶34

(ix). That the applicant will not go to out of India without the permission of the court concerned.

¶35

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 prabhat

¶36

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

Vishal Rao Chandel v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Rao Chandel v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko

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

Saif Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Preeti Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Mohd. Wakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ashish Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Syed Zafaryab Hyder Taqvi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Anothers

Shagun Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.