Allowed

Rajendra Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023ABAIL/10189/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Rajendra Rai in a criminal complaint alleging cheating and fraud. The applicant, facing potential arrest, claimed false implication. The court ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to standard conditions including cooperation with the investigation and presence at key trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation and presence in court.

Rajendra Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185338

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10189 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Criminal Complaint Case No. 7385 of 2015, under sections 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per complaint case, complainant is said to have taken a house on rent from Mr. Rajendra Rai (applicant) son of Late Baijnath Rai in the year 2002 and kept paying him equal rent and kept living in the same house. It is alleged that in the year 2012 Rajendra Rai said that he needs money and is selling that house. Since most of the houses in the said colony belong to applicant and his father and brothers, the complainant expressed her desire to buy the said house, on which a deal was finalized for Rs 7,50,000/and on 13.04.2012, the complainant is said to have handed over the said amount to the applicant and on the same day, a registered deed in favor of the complainant was executed by the applicant. It is alleged that when the complainant applied for transfer of the said house to her name in the Municipal Corporation, Jhansi, it is revealed that the said house is not registered in the name of applicant son of late Baijnath Rai, but of Shri Saligram Rai, son of late Baijnath Rai. On this, the complainant went to applicant's house and told him the fact upon which he said that there is no problem, since there is no partition amongst family members as yet, therefore, he would get the written work done in the name of the complainant from his elder brother Saligram Rai and he would also bear the expenses. But the vendor is avoiding to the repeated requests of the complainant and is

¶9

said to have been behaving in a rude manner. It is also alleged that in this regard, the complainant is said to have given an application at Police Station Nawabad, Jhansi on 15.06.2015 but no action is taken as yet.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that after the death of the father of the applicant, name of the applicant and his family members were mutated in Nagar Nigam, which has been shown as Annexure No. 8 of the present application. It is further submitted that applicant himself had given consent before the Nagar Nigam to mutate the name of the complainant i.e. Arushi Rai and thereafter her name was mutated in the revenue record. It is further submitted that applicant is an old person suffering from various old age diseases and has no criminal history. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Rajendra Rai involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶15

(2) 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 or to any police officer; and

¶16

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

(7) 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 liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 25.9.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Kasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Priyanka Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P.