Allowed

Rahul Singhania v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2018BAIL/39561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court granted bail to Rahul Singhania charged with offences under various sections of IPC including criminal conspiracy and cheating. The court imposed conditions including seizure of security, strict adherence to trial dates, and directive for expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with security of Rs. 20,00,000/-, two sureties, personal bond, and undertakings to appear in court and not seek adjournments. Trial to be expedited within one year.

Rahul Singhania Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39561 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Singhania Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Saxena,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was only an employee of the institution and no role has been assigned to the applicant and there is no evidence against the applicant.

¶7

It has been contended that co-accused – Kunal Dogra and Surendra Dogra have already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 11.01.2018 and 22.05.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39782 of 2017 – (Kunal Dogra Vs. State of U.P) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17746 of 2018 – (Surendra Dogra Vs. State of U.P) respectively . Copies of the bail orders are annexed as Annexure No. 6 & 7 to the affidavit filed in support of this bail application. The applicant is having criminal history of two cases, which is mentioned under Para No. 19 of affidavit of the present bail application. The applicant is in jail since 29.01.2017.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. submitted that a huge amount of money has been misappropriated by the applicant fraudulently

¶9

and dishonestly by committing fraud and forgery and, therefore, he is not entitled for indulgence.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the undertaking given by the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant should be granted bail.

¶11

Let the applicant - Rahul Singhania involved in Case Crime No. 0492 of 2016 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Sector - 39, NOIDA, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and also subject to furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee equal to the amount in question i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-, before his release.

¶12

i. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

ii. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

iii.In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

iv. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence

¶16

of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions or in case of default in deposition of amount as directed herein above, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail granted herein above and the applicant will be taken into custody immediately.

¶19

It is made clear that furnishing of aforesaid security by the applicant will not, in any way, prejudice the right/defence of the applicant during the trial of the case.

¶20

In case the applicant is acquitted in the present criminal case by the court of law, aforesaid security, if furnished by the applicant, shall be discharged in his favour.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.10.2018 Vinod.

Rahul Singhania v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singhania v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javed @ Hafiz Javed Vs State of U.P.

Julphekar Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Sahab Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravin Kumar Das Vs State of U.P.

Farukh @ Jan Mohammad Vs State of U.P.