Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133924 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13981 of 2025 Applicant :- Gaurav Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahipal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant-Gaurav Chaudhary, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.459 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) BNS, 2023, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh.
4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41216 of 2024. The said order reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Gaurav Chaudhary, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 459 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Aligarh.
3. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 01.10.2024 by Inspector Sunil Kumar against the applicant and 16 other persons on the basis of a recovery memo alleging therein that on 30.09.2024 he accompanied with police personnels were in the area busy in their work where on at Tasveer Mahal Chauraha an informer met them and told them that some people are in the vehicles standing beneath Bhamola bridge who are to give forged marksheet to the students which is to be used in verification in the Village Postman and if they immediately go they will be apprehended. On this information, the informant with other police personnels went to the place and tried to collect public witness who refused and then raided the said three vehicles by surrounding them. The people sitting in the vehicles were found carrying papers. In an Alto Car having registration No. U.P.20 CP 6881 the person sitting on his driver seat disclosed his name as Gaurav Chaudhary (the applicant) who disclosed that wherever the marsheet used to be given he used to be taken and was given money. The other person were also inquired who disclosed their names as Abhishek Chaudhary, Priyankul Chaudhary, Hemant Kumar, Sumit Chaudhary, Aham Mishra, Vikal Yadav, Kashim, Suhail, Asif, Sajid Ali, Prashant Kumar, Sakib, Sonu, Deepak, Devendra Kumar Singh the Post Superintendent and Sanjay Kumar Singh the Post Superintendent. A total of 22 forged marsheets were recovered from them. The same were then sealed and sent for forensic in lab.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a driver only. He was found sitting on the driver seat. It is submitted that no offence whatsoever has been committed by him. It is further submitted that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out by the applicant. It is further submitted that from the possession of the applicant one mobile phone was recovered which is the mobile of the applicant himself. It is submitted that neither the applicant is the owner of the recovered car nor any alleged forged marksheet has been recovered from his possession, the co-accused Abhishek Chaudhary is the owner of the said car which was given to him, para 9 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 17 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.09.2024.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is one of the persons who were arrested along with other accused persons and were instrumental in giving forged marksheet to the students which was used for verification for the post of Village Postman. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the applicant was not involved of the gang, since he was arrested along with gang members and there were 22 marksheets recovered at the time of arrest. It is submitted that the gang was working effectively by providing forged marksheets to the students which was being used by them for verification to get employment as Village Postman. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was arrested along with other co-accused persons and 22 marksheets were recovered. The work of the gang was to provide forged marksheets for verification for getting employment as Village Postman. There is no reason for false implication of the applicant in the present case, even no reason could be shown and pleaded in the petition. The entire gang being the applicant and other accused persons were involved in making the process of appointment done with the help of forged documents. The matter is serious in nature. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
7. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."
5. Against the said order dated 26.11.2024 rejecting the first bail application, the applicant Gaurav Chaudhary preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.18071 of 2024 (Gaurav Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.) before the Apex Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7.2.2025, the same reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition.
In view of the statement made, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a driver of the vehicle in question and there was no recovery from his possession. It is further submitted that the applicant had not applied for giving the said exam and as such is not involved in the said matter. It is further submitted that co-accused Sohel, Kasim, Abhishek Chaudhary, Sakib, Sumit Chaudhary, Asif and Hemant Kumar have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 3.6.2025, 3.6.2025, 28.5.2025, 27.6.2025, 27.6.2025, 27.6.2025 and 3.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.17291 of 2025, 17166 of 2025, 3980 of 2025, 42336 of 2024, 41829 of 2024, 41808 of 2024 and 19943 of 2025 respectively, copies of the said orders are annexed as Annexure No.S.A.-2 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 5.7.2025 whereas the copy of the bail order granting to Hemant Kumar has been produced by learned counsel for the applicant, the same is taken on record. While placing order sheet of the trial court which is annexed as Annexure No.S.A.-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 5.7.2025, it has been submitted that vide order dated 13.3.2025, the trial court has framed charge against the accused persons. While placing order dated 26.5.2025 passed by the trial court that information was given that Inspector Suneel Kumar had died in a police attack and as such the evidence of the informant in the matter cannot be recorded. It is submitted that looking to the same fact, the bail to the applicant be granted. It is further submitted that although the said co-accused have been granted bail but the present case is not a case of parity. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.9.2024.
7. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in so far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 26.11.2024. It is further submitted that subsequently the said order was challenged before the Apex Court but the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn therein and thus the fact remains that the order of this Court challenged therein has not been interfered therein. It is further submitted that there is no similarity between the case of the applicant and that of the co-accused who have been granted bail but more so the fact that the bail of the applicant has been rejected by this Court and a challenge to the same by the Apex Court has been withdrawn has not been referred to in any of the orders granting bail to the co-accused persons and as such the facts of the matter are distinguishable. It is further submitted that charge in the matter has been framed against the applicant for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(2), 340(2) and 61(2) BNS which are serious offences. It is further submitted that there is no fresh and new ground in the present bail application. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024. The challenge to the said order before the Apex Court was withdrawn and the said petition therein was dismissed as withdrawn. In so far as co-accused are concerned, the case of learned counsel for the applicant himself is that the case is not at par with that of co-accused. The charge has been framed in the matter and the trial has started. There is no fresh and new ground in the present bail application.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Seriousness and gravity of the offences, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls