Allowed

Rajendra Kumar Jain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023ABAIL/7225/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for a father implicated in a cheating and forgery case due to his son's involvement. Distinguishing the applicant from the main accused, the court granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including appearance in court, no tampering with evidence, and no leaving India without permission.

Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140045

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7225 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dhaka Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Dhaka, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.378 of 2023, registered under Sections 409 and 420 IPC at Police StationCivil Lines, District Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the son of the applicant Sachin Jain is stated to be the proprietor of the company M/s Paras Coal and Cokes Sales India. The applicant is the father of Sachin Jain. The applicant alongwith his son Sachin Jain and Onkarnath Tripathi are stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.2.44 crores taken to supply coal. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have neither returned the said amount of Rs.2.44 crores nor supplied the said coal, as such have committed the said offence.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He is the father of the main accused person Sachin Jain. The GST form also indicates that the said firm is in the name of Sachin Jain. Learned counsel has further stated that the annexure no.4 to the affidavit accompanying the anticipatory bail application also indicates the account details which in the name of Paras Coal and Cokes Sales India and it is stated that it is a proprietor firm and the proprietor is Sachin Jain. Learned counsel has further stated that the Sachin Jain is the son of the applicant and is the sole person

¶12

responsible for the affairs of the company.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has been implicated in the case owing to his relationship with Sachin Jain as he is the son of the applicant. No amount has been transferred to the account of the applicant. All the transactions, if any, have been taken to the account of company M/s Paras Coal and Cokes Sales India, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant and Sachin Jain are hand in glove in the running of the said proprietor firm and simply and technical grounds, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has criminal history of two more cases to him i.e. FIR Nos.130 of 2023 and 09.2023.

¶15

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the proceedings in FIR No.130 of 2023 have been stayed by this Court and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in FIR No.09.2023 vide order dated 05.07.2023. The applicant has no other criminal history. The said cases are regarding one and the same proprietor firm and have been instituted by the informant and his friend.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶17

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. The case of the applicant stands distinguished to the main accused person Sachin Jain .

¶18

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Rajendra Kumar Jain be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶21

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶22

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶23

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶24

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶25

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶26

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶27

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Ravi Kant

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Kumar Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Jain 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Yadav @ Praveen Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajpal Saini and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratnesh Mohan Singh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Qamar Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another