Shiv Kumar Chauhan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶10

3. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0243 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶11

4 . It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants were granted anticipatory bail during investigation by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No.1095 of 2023. It is further submitted that the applicants have cooperated in the investigation and as per the allegation Rs.17,40,000/- is said to have been withdrawn by the applicants but as per the statement of the bank manager no loan has been sanctioned to the applicants. It is further submitted that applicant no.1 is having criminal history, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. It is also

¶12

NABAIL No. 9380 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶15

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and stated that the applicants have withdrawn Rs.17,40,000/- from the bank.

¶16

6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the amount has not been disbursed.

¶17

7 . I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

8. The applicants were granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No.1095 of 2023. Now the charge sheet has already been filed. The criminal history of the applicant no.1 has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. The statement of the bank manager that the loan has not been sanctioned to the applicants.

¶19

9. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶20

10 . Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶21

11 . The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶22

NABAIL No. 9380 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

12. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Shiv Kumar Chauhan and Shakti Chauhan involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶25

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶26

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶27

(iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶28

(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶29

13. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants herein.

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

December 2, 2025 Shahroz

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Kumar Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Similar cases

Lalbabu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh @ Suresh Chandra and Another vs State of U.P.

Hooblal vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Alias Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shammu Pahalwan vs State of U.P.

Mewalal Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. and Another