Allowed

Sunil Kumar Rohela v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2020BAIL/2002/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the petitioner Sunil Kumar Rohela accused under Sections 406, 420 IPC in a cheating case, imposing heavy sureties and strict conditions regarding court appearance and evidence submission, citing prima facie false implication.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions of presence and undertaking.

Sunil Kumar Rohela Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2002 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Rohela Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.M. Faraz, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Sunil Kumar Rohela with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 694 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station - Kutubsher, District - Saharanpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

From perusal of the bail application and affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 21.12.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 24.11.2019. Thus, the applicant has remained confined for more than six months;

¶10

(iii) as to criminal history, it is seen that alongwith the present case, certain other cases have also been registered against the applicant but there is no earlier allegation of any criminal offence against the applicant;

¶11

(iv) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.

¶12

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the present bail application on the ground that the victim has lost his life's savings and that the applicant was the Director in the company being M/s. Sai Kripa Wealth and Status Ltd., wherein the victim had made certain deposits. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail, at this stage.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, according to the applicant, he has been falsely implicated. Also, it may be noted, according to the applicant, M/s. Sai Kripa had acted as a broker, engaged by

¶14

the victim for making investments. Thus, it has been submitted that the amount that was deposited by the victim with M/s. Sai Kripa had been invested with M/s. Master Commodities Service Ltd. of which there is sufficient evidence. The victim had also filled up authorization letter and other documents to make such investment in a third party company. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of investment having lost its value for which the applicant cannot be held criminally liable. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances noted above, the applicant may be enlarged on bail, though on heavy surety .

¶15

In any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶16

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶17

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Sunil Kumar Rohela involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶24

(vii) 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.

¶25

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶26

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶27

It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶28

Order Date :- 9.6.2020 AHA

Sunil Kumar Rohela v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Rohela 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

Ashish Pal Vs State of U.P.

Avnish Vs State of U.P.

Raghuveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaz Ali Vs State of U.P.

Birendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.