Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25370 (ALL)

YATENDRA CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/7709/2025 · 2025-06-30

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101366 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7709 of 2025 Applicant :- Yatendra Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nisheeth Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Bahadur Varma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 04 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B I.P.C. 1860, Police Station Sector-58 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. In the F.I.R. itself, it was specifically mentioned that Rajesh Khantwal and Mininder Kumar are the owner of the company and no allegation has been made against the applicant. Though, it was mentioned that the applicant is also one of the partners. Counsel for the applicant further relied upon the information which was received from Ministry of Corporate Affairs showing the Director of MIP Cab Company are Rajesh Khantwal and Mininder Kumar and the name of the applicant has not been mentioned in the said report as Director of the company. It is further submitted that the co-accused Rajesh Khantwal, against whom allegations have been made, who is the owner of the MIP Cab Company, has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35221 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 19.10.2020. Though, his case is better than the co-accused Rajesh Khantwal. He is seeking parity of the order aforesaid. He argued that charge sheet has been filed in the instant matter and there is no possibility of his fleeing away from investigation proceedings and tampering with the evidence. He also added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant which has been mentioned in para 25 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 09.12.2024. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that company has transferred Rs. 1,50000/- in the account of the applicant which was replied by the counsel for the applicant that the same was the return of his investment in the accused company. 5. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Yatendra Chaudhary involved in the aforementioned 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:- i. The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment. iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad