A plea of regular bail in the matter of Kiran Chauhan versus the state of Uttar Pradesh was heard by the vacation bench of Justices B.R. GAVAI and Suryakant on Friday and granted bail to Kiran Chauhan, since Kiran has already been languishing in custody from past 2 years.
Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha appeared for the petitioner and Adv. Nachiketa for the state submitted that the husband of the petitioner not released yet but her brother has been released. Further the state opposed the grant of bail to Kiran by submitting that allegations are of serious nature, a huge money is involved. The bench also asked that for how long the petitioner will remain in custody, despite the fact that she is already in custody from past 2 years.
That on 29.01.2021, earlier bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose issued notice on the petition filed by Kiran Chauhan seeking regular bail. Kiran challenged the dismissal of bail order of High Court before the apex court. The Hon’ble High court of Madras while dismissing 4th bail application of Kiran made observation that Kiran had hampered with the investigation and tried to manage the Investigation officer and not even that she tried to dispose of her property in order to avoid civil liability which may incur against her.
The background of the case is that the petitioner got arrested on 12.04.2019 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Section 3/5 of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, Sections 45-A, 45-S, 58-B, 5-A of Reserve Bank of India Act and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banking) Act.
Prosecution case is that a company in the name and style of Ummed Corporation Producer Company was floated by the applicant and her husband and other co-accused persons and cheated various complainants and victims by inducing them to deposit an amount of Rs.2 lacs each.
Read Also: Justice Arindam Sinha of Calcutta HC writes to Acting CJ, says recent actions have reduced the court to a ‘mockery’
The Counsel of Kiran submitted before M.P.High Court that although the rent agreement of the premises in which Ummed Corporation Producer Company was being operated, is in the name of Petitioner Kiran as well as Kiran Chauhan was appointed as Manager of the Company but there are no allegations that she was actively involved in inducing the victims to deposit the money.