Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Chandrashekhar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8409 of 2024
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Fraud - Bail Application - Indian Penal Code - Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 - The court denied the bail application of the applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad, who was accused of orchestrating a scheme to defraud individuals by promising employment opportunities in the FCI Department in exchange for substantial sums of money. The court emphasized the calculated deception and manipulation perpetrated by the applicant and his co-accused, highlighting the broader societal implications inherent in cases of fraudulent promises of employment. The court underscored the importance of sensitizing individuals to the fundamental principle that legitimate employment opportunities are attained solely through merit and diligent effort, and emphasized the need for collaboration among stakeholders to disseminate accurate information and foster a culture of integrity and resilience.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad, filed a bail application in Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Bhatni, District-Deoria, during the pendency of trial. The allegations in the FIR depicted a scheme involving the applicant and his co-accused to defraud victims by promising employment opportunities in exchange for money. The victims were left financially and emotionally aggrieved when the promised appointments never materialized.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the applicant were not unsubstantiated and noted the well-coordinated scheme to defraud the victims. The court rejected the defense's arguments regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of direct benefit to the applicant from the fraudulent transactions. The court emphasized the broader societal implications inherent in cases of fraudulent promises of employment and the importance of sensitizing individuals to the fundamental principle that legitimate employment opportunities are attained solely through merit and diligent effort.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the applicant and his co-accused, the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of direct benefit to the applicant from the fraudulent transactions, and the broader societal implications of fraudulent promises of employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the calculated deception and manipulation perpetrated by the applicant and his co-accused, the broader societal implications inherent in cases of fraudulent promises of employment, and the need for collaboration among stakeholders to disseminate accurate information and foster a culture of integrity and resilience.
Final Decision: The court denied the bail application of the applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad, citing the gravity of the offenses, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the potential risk of re-offending. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Upendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Bhatni, District- Deoria, during pendency of trial.
3. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 04.06.2021 when the informant went to his sister's place, he met one Sanjay. He was told by Sanjay that his nephew Chandra Shekhar Prasad is working in FCI Department and other persons are also required there in the department as employees. On the aforesaid, informant's brother-in-law namely Ram Kishan requested Sanjay to talk to Chandra Shekhar Prasad (nephew of Sanjay) to get few family members appointed in the same. On his request, when Sanjay managed a conversation of the informant with Chandra Shekhar Prasad, he was informed that Rs. 3,50,000/- per person will be required for the appointment in the FCI Department. The informant's brother-in-law requested for getting his son and nephew appointed and the informant requested for appointment of his son. Appointment letters were sent on the mobile of the aforesaid persons, seeing which the informant and his brother-in-law were asked to deposit some amount in the account no. 38445012703. The informant Santosh Kumar deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in the aforesaid account on 25.06.2021.
4. Afterwards, the informant came to know that the aforesaid account was in the name of one Abhishek Kumar. Coming to know about the aforesaid account being of Abhishek Kumar, he had a talk with Chandra Shekhar Prasad who gave his PNB Account No. 2147000100191886 and requested the informant to deposit the amount in the aforesaid PNB account, after which Rs. 2,00,000/- were deposited by the informant on 02.07.2021. He was asked to take the print out of the appointment letters as sent on the mobile and come alongwith the applicant Chandra Shekhar Prasad for further steps to be taken for the appointment of the children. Chandra Shekhar Prasad came alongwith co-accused Pankaj Kumar Rajbhar and took alongwith them the son of the informant and the son and nephew of the informant's brother-in- law in a four wheeler vehicle and went to Chapra (Bihar) for their appointment in the FCI Department. Only three persons i.e. the son of the informant and the nephew and son of the informant's brother- in-law were kept in private room. They stayed in the said room till 25 days but neither they were given appointment nor were taken to any government office. On having a conversation with the applicant Chandra Shekhar Prasad, they were told to go back to their residence and as soon as verification of the appointment is done, they will be informed about the same. On the aforesaid assurance, the children came back to their house. Till date neither they have been appointed in the department nor the money has been returned, therefore, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant and two named accused i.e. Pankaj Kumar Rajbhar and Abhishek Kumar.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR without giving any plausible explanation for the same. Though, he received the amount on 02.07.2021 but the same has been deposited in the account of one Om Prakash Pandey at the instance of Pankaj Kumar Rajbhar and upon the direction of the informant. He has placed the statement of account on page no. 57 of the bail application from where it is evident that on 02.07.2021, Rs. 5,50,000/- have been transferred to the account of Om Prakash Pandey. He further submits that even he is a victim of the fraud as played by the other co-accused persons. No reco
The judgment emphasizes the gravity of white-collar crimes and the need for severe punishment for culprits involved in cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Grant of anticipatory bail is extraordinary relief and should be sparingly used, especially in cases of economic offences.
Bail should not be granted in cases involving cheating and creation of false documents to cheat a large number of unemployed youth, as it would be detrimental to the case and to the public's trust in....
Bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, and it should not be withheld as a punishment. The decision to grant bail is based on the nature of the offence, evidence on record, and the absence of a c....
Petitioner’s role in alleged offence, fact that till date no amount has been recovered from petitioner and in case petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with prosecution evide....
Allegations of cheating and impersonation require credible evidence; without it, prosecution cannot proceed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
