Allowed

Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2020BAIL/25107/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Rajendra Kumar, accused in a cheating case involving a closed company. Granting bail considered jail conditions, Article 21, and a Supreme Court precedent, without expressing an opinion on the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties (effective after short-term bail) subject to standard conditions, to be verified by the court.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25107 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sawhney Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ashraf

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Order on Crl. Misc. Exemption Application

¶6

The exemption application is allowed.

¶7

Order on Crl. Misc. Bail Application

¶8

Heard Sri Rajeev Sawhney, counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶9

The allegation in the FIR is that the named accused persons have incorporated a company in the name of Prestige Infra Developers India Ltd. They have taken money from the customers for the purpose of investment but the money was not returned and the office of the company was closed. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that he applicant was not named in the FIR. The informant did not named him in his statement before the police recorded twice. In the third statement of informant, he has been implicated falsely implicated in this case. One of co-accused, namely, Smt. Chandan Sharma, who was the director of the aforesaid company, has been enlarged on bail by the court below on 11.09.2020. The applicant is in jail since 13.12.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant, Sri Mohd. Ashraf, has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was the director of the company. Counsel for the applicant has disputed the aforesaid contentions. Despite time granted to the counsel for the informant he has not filed any counter affidavit.

¶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

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Rajendra Kumar , in Case Crime No. 714 of 2018, under Sections- 409 and 420 IPC, Police Station- Prem Nagar, District- Bareilly, 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 28.9.2020 Rohit

Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asamuddin Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Sharma @ Sandeep Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Sharma @ Sandeep Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Bechan Ram Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Mandal Vs Union of India

Pramod Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.