# Chandrashekhar Prasad (In Jail) v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8409 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrashekhar-prasad-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-51544
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420,
406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 - Bail
Application
-
Fraudulent
Employment
Scheme - Organized Crime - Societal
Implications - The applicant, Chandrashekhar
Prasad, sought bail in Case Crime No. 122 of
2022 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468,
471, 120-B, 504, and 506 IPC, Police Station
Bhatni, District Deoria, for allegedly defrauding
the
informant
and
his
brother-in-law
by
promising jobs in the FCI Department for Rs.
3,50,000 per person. The applicant sent forged
appointment letters, collected Rs. 3,50,000, and
took the victims' children to Chapra (Bihar),
where no appointments materialized. The
applicant argued false implication, delay in FIR,
and transfer of funds to another's account,
claiming he was also a victim. The prosecution
countered that the applicant played an active
role in the organized fraud, and the delay in FIR
was due to false assurances of verification.
Held: The court, emphasizing the gravity of the
organized
crime
and
its
societal
impact,
particularly on vulnerable job seekers, rejected
the bail application. The applicant's transfer of
funds did not absolve him, and the risk of
tampering with evidence or re-offending was
significant. The court underscored the need for
public awareness to prevent such frauds and
directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.

## Text

1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the post. If ultimately, he is cheated, his
entire future will be in peril and it is not
easy to restore normalcy in life by
overcoming from the situation. In my firm
view, these white-collar crimes, which have
drastic effects, should be dealt with iron
hands and severe punishment should be
awarded to the culprits.

13. Taking into account the gravity of
the offense, the evidence presented, the
involvement of the accused, the severity of
the punishment, and the arguments put
forth by the learned counsel for both
parties, I discern no compelling reason to
exercise my discretion in favor of the
accused applicant.

14. Accordingly, the bail application
stands rejected.

15. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.

16. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Additional Chief
Secretary (Home) as well as Director
General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

17. Registrar Compliance shall send
copy of this order to all concerned
forthwith.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1202
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8409 of
2024

Chandrashekhar Prasad
 ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Shalvin, Sri
Upendra Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420,
406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 - Bail
Application
-
Fraudulent
Employment
Scheme - Organized Crime - Societal
Implications - The applicant, Chandrashekhar
Prasad, sought bail in Case Crime No. 122 of
2022 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468,
471, 120-B, 504, and 506 IPC, Police Station
Bhatni, District Deoria, for allegedly defrauding
the
informant
and
his
brother-in-law
by
promising jobs in the FCI Department for Rs.
3,50,000 per person. The applicant sent forged
appointment letters, collected Rs. 3,50,000, and
took the victims' children to Chapra (Bihar),
where no appointments materialized. The
applicant argued false implication, delay in FIR,
and transfer of funds to another's account,
claiming he was also a victim. The prosecution
countered that the applicant played an active
role in the organized fraud, and the delay in FIR
was due to false assurances of verification.
Held: The court, emphasizing the gravity of the
organized
crime
and
its
societal
impact,
particularly on vulnerable job seekers, rejected
the bail application. The applicant's transfer of
funds did not absolve him, and the risk of
tampering with evidence or re-offending was
significant. The court underscored the need for
public awareness to prevent such frauds and
directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)
3 All. Chandrashekhar Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
1203

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-inlaw 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
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
recovery of any amount has been made
from the applicant. Nothing incriminating
has been recovered from the possession of
the applicant which could prove that the
forged appointment letters have been
prepared by the applicant. He further
submits that informant's son was never
examined during the examination.

6. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, learned AGA
for the State on the other hand submits that
it is an organized crime in which applicant
alongwith other co-accused persons have
cheated the informant as well as his
brother-in-law by accepting the money
under the garb of providing job. From the
version of the FIR itself, it is clear that the
forged appointment letters have been sent
from the mobile phone of the applicant to
that of the informant's. The statement of
account as placed by learned counsel for
the applicant showing that the amount as
received by the applicant has been
transferred in the account of one Om
Prakash Pandey at the insistance of
informant and the co-accused Pankaj
Kumar Rajbhar cannot prove the innocence
of the applicant, as in the statement of
account the name of Om Prakash Pandey
has been written by pen, so it cannot be
said as to whether the amount has actually
been transferred in the account of Om
Prakash Pandey or not, as usually in the
present scenario, when the computerized
statement of account is being given, the
name of the account holder from whom the
money is debited or credited to is
mentioned and the account number is also
mentioned in the same. He further submits
that there is no delay in the FIR as the
incident started from the year 2021 and as
assurance was given that after verification
of the appointment, the informant shall be
communicated about the same. Believing
the assurance given by the accused persons,
the informant waited for the appointment
and when no appointment letter was given
nor the money was returned, the present
FIR was lodged.

7. This court has meticulously
examined the contentions put forth by both
learned counsels and has perused the
material on record. The instant bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant, Chandrashekhar Prasad, seeking
his release 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 the pendency of trial.

8. The allegations in the FIR paint a
picture
of
calculated
deception
and
manipulation perpetrated by the applicant
along with his co-accused. It is alleged that
they exploited the trust of the informant
and his brother-in-law by promising
employment opportunities in the FCI
Department in exchange for substantial
sums
of
money.
Despite
receiving
significant
sums,
the
promised
appointments never materialized, leaving
the
victims
both
financially
and
emotionally aggrieved.
3 All. Chandrashekhar Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
1205

9. The learned counsel for the
applicant contends that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the case. However, the court notes that the
allegations against the applicant are not
unsubstantiated. The FIR alleges a wellcoordinated scheme involving the applicant
and his co-accused to defraud the victims.
Moreover, the contention regarding the
delay in lodging the FIR is unpersuasive, as
the delay can be reasonably explained by
the victims' belief in the false assurances
given by the accused regarding the pending
verification process.

10. The defense further argues that
the applicant did not directly get benefit
from the fraudulent transactions and that
the money received was subsequently
transferred to another individual. However,
this assertion fails to exonerate the
applicant from his alleged involvement in
the scam. The mere transfer of funds does
not
absolve
him
of
responsibility,
especially considering the organized nature
of the crime and the active role attributed to
him
in
facilitating
the
deceitful
transactions.

11. Additionally, the contention
regarding the absence of incriminating
evidence directly linking the applicant to
the fabrication of appointment letters is not
conclusive at this stage of the proceedings.
The investigation is ongoing, and further
evidence may yet come to light.

12. In addition to the foregoing
considerations,
it
is
imperative
to
underscore
the
broader
societal
implications inherent in cases of fraudulent
promises of employment. The court wishes
to emphasize the importance of sensitizing
individuals, particularly students and job
seekers, to the fundamental principle that
legitimate employment opportunities are
attained solely through merit and diligent
effort. It is incumbent upon the state to
uphold the integrity of the recruitment
process and to take stringent measures
against those who seek to exploit the
aspirations of innocent individuals through
fraudulent means.

13. Furthermore, it is essential to
recognize that the consequences of falling
prey to such fraudulent schemes extend far
beyond mere financial loss. Individuals
who are misled into parting with their hardearned money in exchange for false
promises of employment often endure
profound emotional distress, shattered
hopes, and a sense of betrayal. Moreover,
the societal repercussions can be equally
damaging, as victims may find themselves
ostracized
and
stigmatized,
their
reputations tarnished, and their social
standing compromised.

14. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all
stakeholders,
including
educational
institutions, government agencies, civil
society organizations, and the media, to
collaborate
in
disseminating
accurate
information and fostering a culture of
integrity and resilience. Comprehensive
education and awareness campaigns must
be developed to empower individuals with
the knowledge and critical thinking skills
necessary to recognize and resist fraudulent
schemes. Moreover, efforts should be made
to provide alternative avenues for career
development
and
skill
enhancement,
thereby reducing the vulnerability of
individuals to exploitation.

15. Ultimately, the goal must be to
create an environment where the pursuit of
professional opportunities is guided by
principles of fairness, transparency, and
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ethical conduct. By instilling these values
in
future
generations
and
holding
accountable those who seek to subvert
them, we can uphold the dignity and
aspirations of all individuals and ensure the
integrity of our institutions and society as a
whole.

16. Upon careful consideration of the
facts and circumstances of the case, this
court is of the opinion that releasing the
applicant on bail at this juncture would not
be in the interest of justice. The gravity of
the offenses, the likelihood of the applicant
tampering with evidence or influencing
witnesses, and the potential risk of reoffending militate against granting bail.

17. Therefore, the bail application
filed
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
Chandrashekhar
Prasad,
is
hereby
denied/rejected.

18. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the present bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.

19. The trial court is directed to
expedite the proceedings in accordance
with law.

20. Order passed accordingly.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1206
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
13634 of 2023
(Under Section 438 Cr.P.C.)

Smt. Vinita Mehrotra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Amit Daga

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B - Anticipatory Bail -
Property Dispute - Alleged Fraudulent Sale
Deeds - Civil and Criminal Proceedings - The
applicant,
Smt.
Vinita
Mehrotra,
sought
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 894 of 2022
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B
IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor,
for allegedly executing ten sale deeds of a
disputed property, 'Dharm Bhawan,' without
valid title. The informant, her brother Rakesh
Sharma, claimed the property was his through a
1974 partition decree and a 2012 Will, alleging
the applicant colluded with land mafias to
fraudulently sell parts of it. The applicant
argued she believed the property was her
inheritance, had initiated civil suits for partition
and cancellation of the 1974 decree and 2012
Will, and had no dishonest intent. Held: The
court, relying on Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St. of Bihar
((2009) 8 SCC 751), Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St.
of Karnataka ((2021) SCC OnLine SC 976), Hira
Lal Vs St. of U.P. ((2009) 11 SCC 89), Ram Biraji
Devi Vs Umesh Kumar Singh ((2006) 6 SCC
669), and Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi) ((2020) 5 SCC 1), granted anticipatory
bail. The court found the dispute primarily civil,
with pending suits, and noted the applicant's
bona fide belief in her property rights, her lack
of criminal antecedents, and her status as a 74year-old woman. The court distinguished her
case from co-accused with criminal records and
emphasized that civil and criminal proceedings
could coexist, as per Pratibha Vs Rameshwari
Devi ((2007) 12 SCC 369), Mahesh Chaudhary
Vs St. of Rajasthan ((2009) 4 SCC 439), and
Priti Saraf Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) ((2021) 16 SCC
142).
Case Law Cited:
1. Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St. of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC
751

2. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St. of Karnataka,
(2021)
SCC
OnLine
SC
976