Allowed

Manoj Kadyan @ Manoj Katyan @ Manoj Kadhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2021BAIL/14159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, a co-accused faces charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court noted the prima facie commercial nature of the dispute and while noting criminal history, held the application deserves acceptance subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions of presence and conduct during trial.

Manoj Kadyan @ Manoj Katyan @ Manoj Kadhan Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Reserved.

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14159 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Kadyan @ Manoj Katyan @ Manoj Kadhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kalim,Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shams Tabrez Ali

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr Anil Bhushan learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd Kalim, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr S. T. Ali, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Manoj Kadyan @ Manoj Katyan @ Manoj Kadhan for release on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 77 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Devraniya, District Bareilly.

¶8

As per prosecution version, the first informant, is owner of a firm in the name and style of M/s Malik Industries, Qasba Riccha, Tehsil Baheri, P.S. Devraniya, and, is engaged in selling of rice to other firms and the applicant, namely, Manoj Kadyan and other co accused persons, namely, Mohit Kumar Goyal, his wife Dharna Garg and Smt Anjali (wife of applicant) are alleged to be owner and partner of M/s Family of Dry Fruits Private Ltd. situated at Kirana Mandi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. It is further alleged that applicant and co accused, namely, Mohit Kumar Goyal, Neeraj Thakkar and Rajeev Kumar are the active agents (lfdz; dk;ZdrkZ) of the said firm. It is alleged that the applicant and named co-accused persons are said to have purchased rice from the first informant between 14.5.2019 to 24.05.2019 for a sum of Rs. 1,23,42,750/- but the payment has not been made to the first informant despite various demands, regarding which the present FIR has been lodged on 13.3.2020 vide Case Crime No. 77 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Devraniya, District Bareilly.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is having no concern with the alleged crime or in any way associated with the alleged firm. It is further contended that the offence, if any, can be said to be made against co accused Mohit Goyal and his wife Dharna Garg, who are the owners/Directors of the said firm.

¶10

It is further submitted that it is a dispute between the parties, which is mainly concern to the quality of rice supplied by the first informant to co accused Mohit Goyal, regarding which an FIR had already been lodged against the first informant on 28.2.2020 vide Case Crime No. 161 of 2020 and present prosecution of the applicant is in counterblast to this FIR just to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant had neither purchased the rice nor he had any concern with any affairs of the firm/company in any manner. It is further submitted that there is no dispute of the payment as the payment has been made through cheques and the applicant had not played any role in the entire monetary transactions.

¶11

It is further submitted that the offences are triable by Magistrate and the applicant is in jail since 23.6.2020. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely of Civil nature involving non payment of dues for the goods sold by the first informant and has wrongly been given colour of criminal prosecution just to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that even if entire allegation is taken to be true at its face value no allegation is made out against the applicant within the realm of criminal breach of trust and cheating.

¶12

It is further submitted that co accused Mohit Goyal, Dharna Garg, Anjali Katyan and Mosrafil Laskar @ Rajeev Kumar have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court and the Court below. The applicant, who is having criminal history of eight cases, has explained the criminal history by contending that he has either been released on regular bail or on interim bail in all those

¶13

2 of 5

¶14

cases and the copies of the bail orders are annexed with the bail application as well as the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that the non payment of funds between two firms involves commercial disputes and the same can only be decided in civil suit.

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant has also filed the Annual Return of the alleged firm of the year 2017 to 2019 to show that co accused Mohit Kumar is the main Director and two other co accused persons, namely, Disha Rana and Dharana Garg are also the Directors of the said firm and the applicant is having no concern with the said firm.

¶16

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended by learned counsel for the informant that looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, it can be said that applicant is habitual offender and has committed similar nature of offences with different persons. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has already been presented in the matter. It is, therefore, contended that looking to the active role and antecedents, it is prayed not to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the bail application may be dismissed.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, role attributed to the applicant and also regard being had to the fact that prima facie it reveals that it is regarding the commercial transaction for the recovery of dues, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be accepted.

¶18

Let the applicant- Manoj Kadyan @ Manoj Katyan @ Manoj Kadhan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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.

¶19

3 of 5

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶21

(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 IPC. (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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶23

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶24

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

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

4 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

Order dated: 21.10.2021 RKS/

¶31

(Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav)

¶32

5 of 5

Manoj Kadyan @ Manoj Katyan @ Manoj Kadhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kadyan @ Manoj Katyan @ Manoj Kadhan 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

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Akash Jatav @ Suryaprakash Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra @ Mota Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Ahmad Vs Ishtiyaque Ahmad and 2 Others

Siddarth Azad Vs Raj Kumar Rawat

Smt. Rekha Verma Vs Srichand Gupta and Another