Rahul Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10327

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 390 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Kumar,R.B.S. Rathaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/ Case Crime No.474 of 2021, under sections 379, 381, 406, 409, 417, 418 and 420 of IPC, P.S.- Morawan, District - Unnao.

¶9

As per the prosecutions story, the allegation against the applicant is that the applicant while posting as Branch Manager in the Central Bank of India was indulged in fraud and he has misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.1.58 crores.

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not a case of embezzlement and basically due to the negligence while the duty of the Branch Manager aforesaid amount has been misplaced though subsequently, it has been alleged that the same was misappropriated. He further added that the chargesheet has been filed and the charges have been framed but the witnesses have still not been produced by the prosecution. Further submission is that the departmental inquiry was also concluded and he has been given punishment of compulsorily retirement. He next submits that the applicant in identical matter has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7509 of 2023 vide order dated 25.07.2024. Next submission is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2022, there is no possibility that the trial would be concluded in the near future. Thus submission is that he may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in

¶12

committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶13

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2022; due to negligence of the applicant the aforesaid amount has been misplaced, charges have been framed but the witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution and the departmental inquiry was concluded by giving punishment of compulsorily retirement to the applicant; the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in identical matter; there is no possibility that the trial would be concluded in the near future; the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Rahul Dixit involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶16

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶17

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(3) 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.; and

¶19

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶20

and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Asraf @ Asraf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Pappu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Sugendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another