Allowed

Rahul Jessel Mittra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024BAIL/826/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail applications filed by a husband and wife charge-sheeted for commercial loan recovery offences. Finding the dispute to be commercial and the maximum sentence to be seven years, the court granted bail subject to specified conditions including attendance requirements.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on personal bond with two heavy reliable sureties each subject to standard conditions including not leaving the country and attending trial.

Rahul Jessel Mittra vs State of U.P… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27831

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 826 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Jessel Mittra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Mukul Kumar Sharma,Mohit Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Alongwith

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2434 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Saroj Mittra Topno @ Saroj Topno Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

¶8

Counsel for Applicant :- Mukul Kumar Sharma,Mohit Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶9

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel counsel for the applicants and Mohd. Noman, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

These are two bail applications filed by the husband (Rahul Jessel Mittra) and wife (Saroj Mittra Topno @ Saroj Topno) respectively who are arraigned in Case Crime No.920 of 2021 Under Sections 417, 418, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC, relating to Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant company has lodged an FIR against the company of the complainant, namely, Marg Darshak Financial Service Ltd. wherein the applicants Rahul Jessel Mittra and his wife Saroj Mittra Topno @ Saroj Topno were the directors and three other co-accused. It is the contention of the counsel for the applicants that Marg Darshak Financial Service Ltd is a micro finance institution which is registered with the Reserved Bank of India to function as a non banking financial institution.

¶13

It is further submitted that the company of the applicants was engaged in providing small loans to the persons of lower

¶14

income strata of the society who do not have regular means to obtain loans from banks and other institutions working in the organized sector. It is also stated that the applicant's company have been in business for more than seven years and had a robust financial health. The company of the applicants had also taken loans from reputed financial institutions including banks and their loans were serviced promptly.

¶15

In the aforesaid backdrop, the complainant company had also agreed to disburse a loan to the company of the applicants and this was done after looking into the financial health and records of the company. Out of the sanctioned loan of four crores, the company received only rupees two crores . The said tenure of the loan was of two years and it is further stated that till 30th of June, 2021, the applicants company had re-paid a sum of rupees one crore eighty nine lakhs nine thousand and one hundred fifty three crores was outstanding.

¶16

It is also urged by the counsel for the applicants that on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic, large number of persons were severely affected including the company. Since the company of the applicants used to disburse loans to the persons of the lower financial strata who were even more severely affected on account of the pandemic and this resulted in a financial crunch for the applicants as it was unable to recover the loans disbursed by it and consequently there was delay on the part of the company to repay the loan to the complainant company.

¶17

It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicants that from the perusal of the FIR it would indicate that it is purely a commercial transaction relating to loan extended by the complainant company to the company of the applicants. The applicants have no intention to default but for the misfortune which descended on the entire world in the shape of COVID-19 pandemic that adversely affected large number of persons, business entities amongst others.

¶18

It is further submitted that all the sections with which the applicants have been charged are triable by a Magistrate and are offences punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years. It is also stated that the applicants do not have any criminal history except that identical cases have been lodged in the shape of Case Crime No.114 of 2022 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 20.12.2023 passed in a Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15040 of 2023 (relating to Rahul Jessel Mittra and by means of order dated 19.02.2024 relating to Saroj Mittra Topno @ Saroj Topno in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8323 of 2023 have enlarged the applicants

¶19

on bail.

¶20

It is further stated that in the other Case Crime No.657 of 2022, the applicants have yet not been taken on remand and thus the criminal history has been explained and it is further stated that the applicants have deep roots in the society, come from an educated background and they are not at risk of evading justice and trial and the applicants are in jail since 02.04.2023. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant company, namely, Mohd. Noman who has filed his Vakalatnama which is taken on record submits that the applicants are the directors of the company of Marg Darshak Financial Service Ltd and they have committed several defaults not only with the complainant company but with other companies as well and in the aforesaid circumstances where huge sum is involved and a number of cases have been filed against the applicants and their company, consequently the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶22

The learned A.G.A. has also made submissions on similar lines.

¶23

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the record, it could not be disputed by the counsel for the complainant company and the A.G.A. that the dispute which is reflected from the FIR concerned is purely a commercial transaction which may have become sour for whatever reason. It is also not disputed that the charge-sheet has been filed and there is no chance for the applicants to tamper with any evidence or influence any witness. It is also not disputed that all the offences with which the applicants are charged prescribed a maximum sentence of seven years and are triable by a Magistrate. Also noticing the fact that the applicants have deep roots in the society and they are not at flight risk and they have already served a term as under trials for more than one year, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶24

Let the applicants Rahul Jessel Mittra and Saroj Mittra Topno @ Saroj Topno involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two heavy reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶25

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶26

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witness 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.

¶27

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

(iv) The applicants will not leave the country without prior written permission of the concerned court.

¶30

(v) The applicants 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, absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶31

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶32

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 ank

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Jessel Mittra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jessel Mittra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vajid Ali Vs Fast Track Court (Junior Division) Sultanpur and 5 Others

Bharat Kumar Sharma Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar and Another

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Ritesh Chakre vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Pandey vs Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Malihabad, Lko. and 2 Others

Bhagwan Prasad Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others