# Himanshu Kanaujiya (In Jail) v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1199
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2997 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/himanshu-kanaujiya-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-51542
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 & 471 - Bail Application -
Cheating and Forgery - Fake Job Scam -
Societal Impact of White-Collar Crimes -
The applicant, Himanshu Kanaujiya, sought bail
in Case Crime No. 369 of 2023 under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, Police Station
Kotwali, District Jaunpur, for allegedly cheating
the informant by promising a job, taking
Rs.1,60,000 via bank transfer and Rs.4,00,000
in cash, and providing a forged appointment
letter. The applicant, in jail since 01.12.2023,
claimed false implication, asserting the money
was a repayment to his mother and denying any
job
promise
or
forged
document.
The
prosecution highlighted the forged appointment
letter in the case diary, the Investigating
Officer's findings of fraud, and an additional
similar case (Case Crime No. 72 of 2024). Held:
The
court
rejected
the
bail
application,
emphasizing the gravity of the offense, the
applicant's involvement, and the societal harm
caused
by
fake
job
scams
exploiting
unemployed youth. The court noted that such
white-collar crimes, which jeopardize the future
of
victims,
require
severe
punishment.
Considering
the
evidence,
the
applicant's
criminal history, and the risk of further offenses,
no grounds for bail were found. The court
directed communication of the order to the
Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director
General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, for further
action.

## Text

3 All. Himanshu Kanaujiya Vs. State of U.P.
1199

11. Prosecution evidence does not
connect the applicant with the offence.

12. The applicant does not have
any criminal history apart from this case.

13. The applicant is not a flight
risk. The applicant being a law abiding
citizen has always cooperated with the
investigation and undertakes to join the
trial proceedings. There is no possibility of
his influencing witnesses, tampering with
the evidence or reoffending.

11. In the light of the preceding
discussion
and
without
making
any
observations on the merits of the case, the
bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant- Pramod be
released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number, on furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court below. The
following conditions be imposed in the
interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper
with the evidence or influence any witness
during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1199
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2997 of
2024

Himanshu Kanaujiya ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vijai Prakash Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Sri Arunesh Kumar Singh, G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 & 471 - Bail Application -
Cheating and Forgery - Fake Job Scam -
Societal Impact of White-Collar Crimes -
The applicant, Himanshu Kanaujiya, sought bail
in Case Crime No. 369 of 2023 under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, Police Station
Kotwali, District Jaunpur, for allegedly cheating
the informant by promising a job, taking
Rs.1,60,000 via bank transfer and Rs.4,00,000
in cash, and providing a forged appointment
letter. The applicant, in jail since 01.12.2023,
claimed false implication, asserting the money
was a repayment to his mother and denying any
job
promise
or
forged
document.
The
prosecution highlighted the forged appointment
letter in the case diary, the Investigating
Officer's findings of fraud, and an additional
similar case (Case Crime No. 72 of 2024). Held:
The
court
rejected
the
bail
application,
emphasizing the gravity of the offense, the
applicant's involvement, and the societal harm
caused
by
fake
job
scams
exploiting
unemployed youth. The court noted that such
white-collar crimes, which jeopardize the future
of
victims,
require
severe
punishment.
Considering
the
evidence,
the
applicant's
criminal history, and the risk of further offenses,
no grounds for bail were found. The court
directed communication of the order to the
Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director
General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, for further
action.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by
learned counsel for the applicant today in
the Court, is taken on record. Office is
directed to register the same.

2. Heard Mr. Vijai Prakash Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Arunesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the informant and Mr. D.P. Singh, learned
AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has
been filed on behalf of the applicant,
Himanshu Kanaujiya with a prayer to
release him on bail in Case Crime No. 369
of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictJaunpur, during pendency of trial.

4. As per the allegation in the FIR, the
applicant, promising to provide job to the
informant, has taken Rs.1,60,000/- in his
account and about Rs.4,00,000/- in cash
and has given an appointment letter, which
was found to be forged.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present
case due to mala fide intentions. He further
submits that Rs.1,60,000/-, which has
received in his account, is the money which
the
informant
had
taken
from
the
applicant's mother and returned the same.
He further submits that in order to save
himself from returning the money, which
he had taken from the applicant's mother,
the informant placing forged documents
has falsely implicated the applicant in the
present case. He had never promised for
providing any job nor has given any forged
appointment letter to the informant. He
further submits that the criminal history of
the applicant has been explained in para
4&5 of the supplementary affidavit. He is
languishing in jail since 01.12.2023. In case
he is released on bail, he will not misuse
the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the
trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted
that there is no chance of applicant fleeing
away from judicial process or tampering
with the witnesses.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by
contending that the applicant has been
cheated by taking amount of Rs.1,60,000/-
in his account and Rs.4,00,000/- has been
paid in cash and a forged appointment letter
has been given. The forged appointment
letter, which has been given by the
applicant to the informant, is the part of
case dairy and the Investigating Officer has
found that the fraud and cheating has been
done by the applicant. He further submits
that apart from the cases explained by
learned counsel for the applicant in para
4&5 of the supplementary affidavit, there is
one more case, i.e. case crime no.72 of
2024, which is similar in nature. Therefore,
there is sufficient evidence available on
record against the applicant, hence the
applicant is not entitled for bail at this
stage.
7. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the record.

8. Perusal of the records goes to show
that the applicant on the assurance of
providing job, has been cheated by taking
amount from the informant and a forged
appointment letter has been given to him.
The forged appointment letter, which has
been given by the applicant to the
informant, is the part of case dairy and the
Investigating Officer has found that the
fraud and cheating has been done by the
applicant, therefore, it would be appropriate
to refer to the relevant statutory provisions
in this regard:-
3 All. Himanshu Kanaujiya Vs. State of U.P.
1201

"406. Punishment for criminal
breach of trust.?

Whoever
commits
criminal
breach of trust shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.

415. Cheating.?

Whoever,
by
deceiving
any
person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces
the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that
any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally
induces
the
person
so
deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or
harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

Explanation.?
A
dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this section.

417. Punishment for cheating.?

Whoever cheats shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.

420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property.?

Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any
part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable
security,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

9. While analyzing the above
provisions, the ingredients therein to the
present case, wherein, the complaint was
lodged by the complainant, alleging that the
informant was cheated by the accused
under the guise of providing the job, this
Court is of the view that a cognizable
offence is made out to proceed against the
accused person.

10. It is the specific allegation of the
complainant that the accused person having
received the money by making a promise
that he would provide job, however, later
committed breach of trust and thereby,
fraudulently and dishonestly induced him
since he did not provide any job nor
returned the money.

11. The very term "unemployment"
will sound the death knell for the future of
the youth of this nation. Every individual
would like to stand on his own legs to avert
the reverberations of the said word
"unemployment". Such untiring pursuit for
employment
by
the
youth is
taken
advantage of by certain sections/persons.

12. It is unfortunate that, now-a-days,
everywhere
in
the
country,
bogus
manpower consultant agencies and fake
recruitment agencies are mushrooming
with the main illegal object of luring the
unemployed youth with employment in
government sectors as well as in foreign
countries. The youth too, without knowing
the hidden agenda, are falling prey to such
temptations of lucrative jobs and paying
huge
amounts
even
by
selling
the
properties held by their families or availing
loans from financial institutions with high
rate of interest. While in some cases, the
consultancies or agencies would disappear
overnight with the amount collected from
the victims, in some other cases, they used
to issue fake appointment letters to the
victims, who would know about the fraud
played on them only at the time of joining
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.)