Allowed

Prahit Singhal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2018BAIL/9568/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application where the applicant, accused of cheating and misappropriation of a loan amount, sought release. The court considered allegations of false implication and delay in FIR. Relief was granted subject to deposit amounting to 4,40,000 rupees.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties and depositing Rs. 4,40,000 as fixed deposit.

Prahit Singhal Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9568 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Prahit Singhal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad ,learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to the FIR, the informant has taken a loan for Rs.4,40,000/- (Rupees Four Lac Forty Thousand) from Punjab National Bank and a demand draft of that loan amount was given to the applicant on 3.4.2017 for providing him machines for making disposable plates etc.but the applicant did not provide the machines nor he returned the demand draft to the informant maliciously.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that the FIR of the present case was lodged after a delay of 8 months of the incident without any plausible reason. The applicant is innocent and due to GST system he could not give the machines to the informant as the rates of the machines were increased after GST implementation. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 7.1.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶8

Per contra,learned A.G.A. submitted that a huge amount has been misappropriated by the applicant fraudulently and dishonestly by committing fraud and forgery and, therefore, he is not entitled for indulgence and in case the applicant is released on bail, the amount in question be secured by this Court.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of

¶10

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

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Prahit Singhal involved in Case Crime No. 523 of 2017 of 2017, under sections 420,406 I.P.C., Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor 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 prior deposit of Rs. 4,40,000/-by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt or as the case may be,in the court concerned ( payable in court's name), to be invested in a nationalized bank and ultimately paid to the person concerned occasioned to wrongful loss on the satisfaction of court concerned.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall

¶18

be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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 be taken into custody immediately.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.3.2018 Su

Prahit Singhal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahit Singhal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay @ Kalu Vs State of U.P.

Gauraw Vs State of U.P.

ram awadh maurya Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Omkar Vs State of U.P.

Jai Narain Bind Vs State of U.P.