Allowed

Saurabh Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2020BAIL/1486/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust related to construction cheques, the court allowed bail. The applicant, a salaried employee, argued the case stemmed from a contractual dispute and he was not implicated in the initial FIR. Despite the informant's opposition citing RERA andIBC, the High Court allowed bail citing Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Saurabh Rai Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1486 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Saurabh Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shivendra Raj Singhal,N0208

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivendra Rai Singhal,learned counsels for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The allegation against the applicant made in complaint dated 23.5.2017 filed by one Jai Ram Verma, was that he knew the complainant for the last five years. He showed model of shops and buildings which were under construction by the company, Earth Infrastructural Ltd., and thereafter he took cheques of Rs. 2,45,000/- Rs. 9,80,000/and Rs. 4,90,000/- and Rs. 6,12,000/- in cash in the name of the company. The applicant and other co-accused neither provided the flat and office nor returned his money.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is a salaried employee of the company and has no share in the business of the company. The applicant has been implicated but the company has not been implicated in the First Information Report. No money was transferred to his personal account. There is contractual dispute between the company and the applicant for breach of contract, the First Information Report cannot be lodged. Applicant was implicated in this case for ulterior motives.He is in jail since 10.1.2019 and has criminal history of six cases of similar nature and in two such cases he was enlarged on bail vide orders dared 23.10.2019 and 21.8.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.18591 of 2019 and 6810 of 2020.

¶8

Learned Senior Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has relied upon paragraph-86 of the judgment in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and

¶9

Infrastructure Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2019, S.C.,4055 and has submitted that Real Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is to be read harmoniously with Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 .It is only in the event of conflict that the Code will prevail over RERA. Remedies that are given to allottees of flats apartment are therefore concurrent remedies, such allottees of falts/apartments being in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as Code.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact..

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Saurabh Rai, who is involved in Complaint Case No. 2352 of 2017 under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station-Cantt, , DistrictVaranasi, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶17

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.10.2020 Atul kr. sri.

Saurabh Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Rai 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

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Babban Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Rai Vs State of U.P.

Arshad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Babbu Vs State of Up