HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26504 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Satish Kumar Chaubey seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.156 of 2024, under Sections 409, 420, 504, 120-B IPC, Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence 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 as per the FIR the incident is said to have occurred between 15.9.2020 and 5.2.2021 but the FIR has been registered on 9.10.2024. It is further submitted that the role and involvement of applicant is only of giving advice to the informant as a Chartered Accountant. It is argued that the applicant is not the actual beneficiary of the so called fraudulent transaction though the amount is said to have been entrusted in favour of the applicant. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards the page nos.62 and 63 of annexure no.7 of the bail application, wherein it is mentioned that Rs.29,46,184/- has been given in the current account of Firm Shivansh Enterprises and Rs.53,29,641/- has been given in the account of Jai Maa Durga Enterprises. In this way Rs.1 crore 69 lakhs is said to have been circulated. It is further argued that accused applicant has criminal history of four cases in respect of the same incident and all the four cases have been explained in para 20 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that since Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Divyanshu Chaudhary, Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arun Kumar Patel, G.A. Satish Kumar Chaubey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3606 of 2024) dated 24.9.2025 and submits that the present matter essentially relates to business transactions. 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. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he is not able to explain whether applicant is the real beneficiary of the fraudulent transaction or not. 5. 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 heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (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. (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. BAIL No. 26504 of 2025 2 (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. (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. 6. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 7. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 13, 2025 RA BAIL No. 26504 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad