Allowed

Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2020BAIL/42384/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application filed by Rajendra Kumar in a cheque-dishonour case involving sections 409, 420, 504, 506 IPC. Applicant was a peon while a Director had already been granted bail. Court imposed standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; released on personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court appearances and penalties for absence or misuse of bail.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42384 of 2020

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Sri Rajeev Sawhney, learned counsel for the applicant has filed short supplementary affidavit today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajeev Sawhney, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶7

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.237 of 2019 at Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Bareilly on 30.06.2019, under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge (In-Charge), Bareilly on 11.09.2020.

¶9

The applicant is in jail since 13.09.2019 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶10

Sri Rajeev Sawhney, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is only a peon in the Company. The applicant is not in-charge of the day to day functioning of the affairs of the Company and cannot be called its alter ego. The persons in higher management are responsible for depositing of the money and also for repayment. Smt. Chandan Sharma who is a Director of the Company and in-charge of the day to day functioning has already been granted bail by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Bail Application No.2555 of 2020 (Smt. Chandan Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 11.09.2020.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the submissions from the record or upon instructions.

¶12

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Rajendra Kumar be released on bail in Case

¶14

Crime No. 237 of 2019 under Section 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Prem Nagar, District- Bareilly, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.12.2020 SK Goswami

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra @ Jitendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sugreev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avanish Singh Urf Mintu Vs State of U.P.

Lavkush Patel Vs State of U.P.

Aafaq Alias Nadeem Vs State of U.P.