Prabhaker Kaushal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Prabhaker Kaushal, in Case Crime No. 69 of 2023. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the applicant's alleged innocence, lack of prior criminal history, and the fact that co-accused Sandeep Kumar Gupta and Krishna Mohan Tiwari had already been granted bail. The Court noted that the applicant's documents were allegedly used by co-accused for the registration of a bogus firm. The Court explicitly stated that it was not making any observations that would affect the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate/court, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not pressuring witnesses, and appearing on every date fixed by the trial court. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Prabhaker Kaushal, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR, lodged on January 24, 2023, alleged the registration of a bogus firm under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) department in the applicant's name. The applicant's statement indicated his documents were used by a co-accused, Krishna Mohan Tiwari, for the firm's registration. Statements from co-accused Sandeep Kumar Gupta and Krishna Mohan Tiwari, recorded by the State Tax Officer, confirmed they handed the applicant's PAN card to another co-accused, Abhishek Srivastava, who promised to conduct a foodgrain business and share profits. The applicant claimed innocence, false implication, and no prior criminal history. Co-accused Sandeep Kumar Gupta and Krishna Mohan Tiwari had already been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the bail granted to co-accused. Petitioner's Contention: The applicant is innocent, falsely implicated, and has no prior criminal history. The applicant's documents were allegedly misused by co-accused. The applicant's wife, Smt. Neetu, deposed in support of the bail application. Revenue/State's Contention: The State, through the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), opposed the bail application. However, the judgment does not detail specific arguments made by the State beyond their representation.