This judgment dismisses a bail application filed by Rohit Gill in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case involving alleged misappropriation of funds. The court found no fit case for bail despite the applicant's deposit of funds.
Bail of the applicant Rohit Gill is refused and the bail application is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35341 of 2020
Applicant :- Rohit Gill Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.0357 of 2019, under Section 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant as well as informant invested money in the MFP & Film Production House. According to FIR, on 18.11.2017 informant paid Rs. 2,64,000/- in cash to the applicant as well as Dr. Satyaveer Pindey, Doctor Rajeev Arya, Anuj Kumar and Manoj Gurger. He further submits that applicant also lodged FIR against owner of the Production House company and others being Case Crime No. 662 of 2019, under Sections 506, 323, 420 and 406 IPC. In the FIR it has been alleged that the company misappropriated the money of the applicant as well as informant in this case. After transfer of the money applicant and informant used to work with the company. When money was misappropriated and applicant lodged FIR then informant has lodged FIR against the applicant. He also submits that he has deposited the money regarding which bank account statement has been submitted, which is at page 23 onwards to the supplementary affidavit. He next submits that he has not misappropriated any money. He further submits that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2020.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submit that as per FIR as well as investigation through different account numbers near about Rs. 55.00 lakhs were transferred to the account of the accused persons, which has been fraudulently misappropriated.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence collected during investigation, money deposited in the account of applicant and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I do not find a fit case for bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Rohit Gill is hereby refused and the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the aforesaid case in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible, if possible within six months..
Order Date :- 12.1.2021
MAA/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the applicant charged under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for alleged misappropriation of funds should be accepted.
Rohit Gill
Ali Zamin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
