Allahabad High Court
Raghuraj Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13381 of 2022
Applicant :- Raghuraj Singh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Abrar Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
There is allegation against the applicant that he was C.M.D of a Finance Company and he has invited investments and has eloped with about 10 crores.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the informant has alleged that he has invested Rs. 5 lakhs in the company. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the investors who have invested small amount of Rs. 15,000/-, 5,000, and 10,000/- and no one is alleged to have invested Rs. 5 lakhs as stated in the FIR. Even the informant has not been able to prove that he invested Rs. 5 lakhs. He has only stated that he invested Rs. 15,400/-.
Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the total amount of about Rs. 80,000/- has been found to have been invested by the investors in the company of the applicant. He is willing to deposit the aforesaid amount before the trial court. The applicant is in jail since 26.10.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Raghuraj Singh Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 183 of 2021, under Sections- 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station- Manjhanpur, District- Kaushambi, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall be enlarged on bail after depositing an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the court by way of account transfer and furnishing of proof of the same before the court concerned. The court shall fix the amount in F.D.R renewable from year to year till the conclusion of trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(iii) 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. 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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 then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) 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 absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The amount of Rs. 80,000/- paid to the informant shall be without prejudice to the rights of the applicant to contest the trial and payment shall abide by final result of the trial.
Order Date :- 11.8.2022
Rohit
