High Court granted bail to Suresh Singh Rana, a bank branch manager, in a cheating case. The court noted prima facie fit case due to contradictions in the FIR, explained criminal history, and pandemic-related jail overcrowding.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.
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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5162 of 2022
Applicant :- Suresh Singh Rana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Raj Singhal,Sandeep Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shravan Kumar Ojha, the learned AGA for the State through V.C.
This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Suresh Singh Rana for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.70 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 34 IPC registered at Police Station- Sungadi, District- Pilibhit.
The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 12.2.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Sri Pritam Singh against the applicant before Police Station- Sungadi, District- Pilibhit being FIR no.0070 of 2021 on 6.2.2019 at 14:49 hours under Sections 420, 406, 352, 506 regarding commission of offence with an allegation that the complainant and his wife are uneducated persons and the complainant and his wife had approached to the bank to take financial assistance while taking CC limit and the panel lawyer of the bank being Sri Ravindra Pal had instructed them that for the purposes of grant of financial assistance, they need to get prepared the title documents so as to enable the bank to release the necessary funds. Further allegation has been made that the signature of the complainant and his wife were taken on plain paper and stamp also and thumb impression was also taken and in this regard it is also alleged that photograph was also taken and assurance was made that financial loan will be sanctioned and accordingly, they will be informed and the relevant documents including the passbook will also be furnished.
As per the allegations contained in the first information report neither file passbook nor cheque book was extended to the
complainant or his wife. However, they received recovery notice from the office of the Tehsildar whereby approximately Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.11,73,000/- were sought to be demanded from them. It has been further narrated in the FIR that neither any agricultural equipment nor seeds or fertilizer and tractor or trolly was granted to them. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question as he happens to be the Branch Manager of the Bank in question being the Indian Bank and the bank for the purposes of evaluating the documents qua grant of financial assistance takes help of the panel lawyer who himself is vested with the duty to not only verifying the documents of title but also visit site in question in order to ascertain that the land which is being sought to be pledged from the grant of financial assistance is adequate and needs the parameters as envisaged by the bank itself.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that so far as the present case is concerned the panel lawyer being Sri Ravindra Pal had undertaken the said exercise and the learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this court towards page 39 of the bail application so as to contend that in a statement of Anshu Jauhari under Section 161 Cr.P.C., according to him the same procedure was followed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of the court towards page 44 of the bail application so as to contend that that in the statement of the Field Officer being Sri Haldhar Singh, he has come with the stand that the payments relating to the financial assistance so granted by the bank was given to the complainant and his wife as vouchers and the receipts itself shows that there was thumb impression of the complainant/wife.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question and even otherwise it is highly improbable and unbelievable that the complainant and his wife after giving the necessary documents and also furnishing their personal identity card including completion of the formalities had waited for a such a long time and they come into action after deep-slumber when the recovery notice was issued.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that it is nothing but attempt on the part of the complainant and his wife to evade the payment of the money, they have taken in the shape of financial assistance.
Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of
this Court towards paragraph-38 of the bail application so as to contend that he has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and for that very purpose, he has further referred to the order dated 2.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1785 of 2022, Surendra Singh Rana Vs. State of U.P. wherein also the criminal history of the applicant has been explained and taken note of while enlarging him on bail. For ready reference the order dated 2.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1785 of 2022 is being quoted hereinunder:-
"Today, the matter has been taken up through virtual mode.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, the learned AGA for the State.
This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Suresh Singh Rana for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.534 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Sungadi, District-Pilibhit.
The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 12.2.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by one Sri Trilok Singh son of Sri Bahadur Singh, before P.S. Sungadi, District Pilibhit being FIR No. 0534 of 2018 on 13.12.2018 at 14:47 hours against the applicant, who has been shown in the FIR as the then Branch Manager, and 4 others with relation to the commission of offence from 21.11.2015 to 8.9.2018 alleging that the complainant happens to be the owner of 3 acres of land situate at village Andbojhi, Sehramau Uttari, District Pilibhit, which had been delivered to him pursuant to the execution of a patta. As per the version contained in the FIR in question, the complainant came in contact with one of the broker/ mediator and certain other persons and on 21.11.2015 of the accused including the applicant and the legal advisor of the Bank of India issued a Kisan Credit Card, whereby assurance was also made that after completion of all the legal formalities as prescribed by the Bank itself he will be granted a limit of Rs.3,00,000/-, subject to the condition that applicant will have so sign on a blank paper. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that as per the version contained in FIR in question, the complainant has come up with the stand that he has never received any money, however, on 8.9.2019, he received a summon from National Lok Adalat requiring him to pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-, which has been granted to him with financial assistance and on 6.9.2018, when the applicant went to the Bank, then he came to know that from his Bank account, money has been siphoned off, which has been shown to be advanced as loan. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards page-62 of the paper-book being the statement of the complainant, wherein the complainant has come up with the stand that he has been advanced a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs and he was paid Rs.1 lakh only out of the said loan, and Rs.50,000/- was being deducted / taken away as the necessary expenses. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that the
complainant himself has come up with the stand that he had met the bank officials and the matter was even discussed regarding granting of loan and further he had also received various notices from the Bank for the payment of the said amount. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that entire allegations so contained in the FIR, even if taken to its face value, do not constitute any offence and it is nothing but a case where the complainant is not honouring its commitment to pay the amount and is resiliencing back while taking the plea that he has been deceived. Learned counsel for the applicant has further made a statement to the effect that there had been infraction of any rule or norms of the bank while advancing financial assistance, but the same cannot partake the character of an offence under IPC, as the same is to be dealt with in departmental proceeding, as per the rules of the bank in question. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph-36 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, so as to contend that as many as 6 cases have been shown to be pending against the applicant, in first case being Case Crime no. 290 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, Bail Application No.2274 of 2022 is pending before this Court, so far as Case Crime no. 393 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is concerned, the applicant has argued that he has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.8.2021 in Bail Application No. 25450 of 2021, so far as Case Crime no. 319 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC is concerned, the applicant has already been bailed out in Bail Application No. 35513 of 2021 on 17.11.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that so far as Case Crime no. 470 of 2018, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC is concerned, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.1.2022 in Bail Application No. 45407 of 2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that so far as Case Crime no. 474 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406 IPC is concerned, applicant has preferred a bail application before this Court, which is still pending. Learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that so far as Case Crime no. 70 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 352 and 506 IPC is concerned, the bail application has not been filed, but the same is under reporting. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.1.2020. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.
Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed offence by deceiving the complainant and duped his heard-earned money. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that there are contradictions in the narration of the allegation, contained in the FIR in question, as well as the statement of complainant so recorded, and further the fact that the criminal history has been properly explained in paragraph-36 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.
Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as in the narration of the FIR vis-a-vis statements, there are material contradictions and further the applicant has explained the criminal history, and also while looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Suresh Singh Rana involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Any 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.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained."
Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 16.1.2020. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.
Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed offence and that is why he is being proceeded in the criminal proceedings as even from the perusal of the allegations contained in the FIR, it becomes crystal clear that the applicant
with the aid of other co-accused so nominated in the FIR had defrauded and duped not only the bank but also the complainant. However, he could not dispute that the criminal history explained by the applicant and it has been taken note in the order dated 2.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1785 of 2022.
Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and is languishing in jail since 16.1.2020, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Suresh Singh Rana involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Any 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.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
Order Date :- 17.2.2022 piyush
Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.21 10:18:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is fit for grant of bail considering contradictions in the FIR, explained criminal history, and jail overcrowding during the pandemic.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisonsReferred¶25
Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Singh Rana
State of U.P.
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
