Allowed

Ruchin Singhal v. CBI through Stb

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023ABAIL/4684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused-applicant charged with forgery and cheating for preparing false audit reports. The applicant was found eligible due to his cooperation in the investigation and furnishing of bonds. The application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; no further bonds or sureties required.

Ruchin Singhal Vs CBI through Stb — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4684 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ruchin Singhal Opposite Party :- Cbi Through Stb Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Imran Ibrahim,Anurag Vajpeyi,Sr. Advocate

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the accused-applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India with Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in R.C. No.DST/2019/A/0005, under Sections 120-B read with 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station STB/CBI, New Delhi.

¶8

Accused-applicant is a statutory auditor of M/s Rama Agro and Food Products. The aforesaid company obtained cash credit limits for various amounts ranging from Rs.1 Crore to Rs.6 Crores from Bank of Baroda. This account turned NPA as the said company stopped paying interest and the loan amount. Allegation against the company and its management is that by submitting forged and fabricated documents, including the audit reports prepared by the accused-applicant, obtained the over draft/cash credit limit from the bank with intention to cheat the bank.

¶9

Allegation against the accused-applicant is that he prepared a forged and fabricated audit report other than what were submitted before the Income Tax Department and that report became the ground for sanctioning the cash credit limit and overdraft facility to the company.

¶10

The matter was reported to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for sort ‘CBI’) and the CBI registered the FIR at R.C. No.DST/2019/A/0005 on 2.9.2019. Accused-applicant was not named in the FIR, but during the course of investigation by the CBI, his role for commission of offence came to the light and it was said that the accused-applicant prepared two audit reports in respect of accused company, i.e. (i) he submitted one audit report before the Income Tax authorities and; (2) another to the bank for sanctioning the cash credit lit/over draft facility . The offences for which the accused-applicant has been charge sheeted are Sections 120-B read with 420, 468 and 471 IPC, which entail punishment upto seven years.

¶11

Accused-applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 11.7.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that in pursuance to the interim direction issued by this Court, the accused-applicant has been appearing in the trial court and he has cooperated during the course of investigation. Accusedapplicant has submitted personal bond and two sureties as directed by this Court before the court concerned.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case particularly that the accused-applicant cooperated during the course of investigation and he has furnished personal bond and two sureties as directed by this Court and he is cooperating in the trial, I am of the view that the accused-applicant, who has no other criminal antecedent, is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

Accordingly, accused-applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail. Since the accused-applicant has already furnished personal bond and two sureties in the trial court, no further bonds and sureties are required to be furnished, with further following

¶15

conditions :-

¶16

(i) That the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(ii) That 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

¶19

(iv) Such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section

¶20

(3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

¶21

With the above observation/direction, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.1.2023

¶23

Rao/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ruchin Singhal v. CBI through Stb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruchin Singhal v. CBI through Stb

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

Mohd. Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bhudev Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Chand Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Khan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another