Allowed

Sanjeev Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2020BAIL/25963/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considers a criminal bail application in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. The court allows the bail application, citing the spread of coronavirus, precedent regarding the ingredients of offences 406 and 420 IPC, and larger mandates of Article 21. The applicant is ordered released on bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, no tampering with evidence, and no further criminal activity.

Sanjeev Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 06.10.2020 Delivered On:- 08.10.2020

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25963 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar,Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶6

Heard Shri Inder Pal Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

There is allegation in the FIR is that the informant came across the applicant on 21.10.2018 and informed him that he is employed in a company namely, M/s. Nift Tech Global Private Ltd., which doubles the investment in 18 months. The applicant introduced him to the Directors of the company namely, Dharmpal and Ashok Kumar son of Raghubir Singh and Sushma wife of Dharmpal Singh. He gave a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/to the applicant in presence of the Directors of the company and the applicant issued a receipt of the same. After 18 months when the applicant contacted the informant on mobile phone he sought his account number but money was never deposited in the same. Thereafter he came to know that the accused persons have closed their office and have eloped from their homes. They have committed fraud of many crores.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the offences alleged against him are not made. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Another vs. Sudha Seetharam & Another, 2019 (4) Scale 254 , wherein the Apex Court has held that for constituting offence under Section 406 IPC, the ingredients

¶9

¶10

detailed in Section 405 IPC should be disclosed. The essential ingredients mentioned under Section 405 IPC are that the accused should have been entrusted with the property, he should have dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property to his own use and such misappropriation /conversion/ use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract. He has submitted that the entrustment of the cheque was made to the company and not to the applicant. The applicant only introduced him to the Directors of the company and on being satisfied with their advice, the informant invested an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the company. The misappropriation has been done by the company which has not been implicated as an accused in the FIR.

¶11

Regarding section 420 IPC he has submitted that for constituting the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. There should have been allegation of intention to cheat since the very beginning of the transaction. There is no such allegation against the applicant. The dishonest intention on the part of the applicant should have been alleged. The applicant is in jail since 20.07.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶12

Learned A.G.A has opposed the bail application of the applicant but could no dispute the above arguments.

¶13

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.

¶14

¶15

Let the applicant, Sanjeev Chauhan , in Case Crime No. 180 of 2020, under Sections- 406 and 420 IPC, Police Station- Bahadurgarh, District- Hapur, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of

¶22

¶23

liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Order date : 08.10.2020 Rohit

Sanjeev Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Chauhan 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

Samir Vs State of U.P.

Danish Shekh Vs State of U.P.

Fatehchandra @ Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Rayakwar Vs State of U.P.