2022 (5) TMI 1516 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - allegation of booking of 82 plots in the Company J.K.V. Homes - HELD THAT - The learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for grant of bail but the have not disputed the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant including that coaccused has been granted bail by this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, period of incarceration, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including that co-accused has been granted bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this is found to be a fit case for granting bail. Let applicant- Rajesh Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application in Case Crime No. 674 of 2017 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 409 IPC, Police Station Mohammedabad, District Mau.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations and Resignation:
The applicant sought bail in a case involving allegations under various sections of the IPC. It was argued that the applicant had resigned from the Company in question, and vague allegations were made regarding depositing amounts and booking plots after the applicant's resignation was accepted. The FIR was lodged after the applicant's resignation, raising questions about the timing of the alleged transactions.

2. Lack of Clarity in Allegations:
The counsel for the applicant highlighted the lack of clarity in the allegations, emphasizing that the informant failed to specify the dates of alleged deposits by the applicant and others. This lack of specific details raised doubts about the veracity of the accusations against the applicant.

3. Precedents and Co-Accused:
The applicant's counsel cited previous instances where the applicant had been granted bail in similar cases. Additionally, it was noted that a co-accused had already been released on bail by the Court, further supporting the argument for the applicant's bail.

4. Arguments and Opposition:
The State's counsel and the complainant's counsel opposed the bail plea but did not dispute the contentions made by the applicant's counsel, including the fact that a co-accused had been granted bail. Despite opposition, the Court considered various factors, including the nature of allegations and the period of incarceration.

5. Grant of Bail:
After considering the facts, arguments, and the status of the co-accused, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. The Court ordered the release of the applicant on bail in the mentioned Case Crime Number, subject to specific conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance with the legal process.

6. Bail Conditions:
The Court imposed several conditions for the applicant's bail, including attending court proceedings, not seeking adjournments without valid reasons, and ensuring regular appearances. Violation of these conditions would be considered as misuse of bail, leading to appropriate legal actions, including potential cancellation of bail.

7. Compliance and Verification:
The bail conditions also required the applicant to file and verify certain documents from the official website of the High Court Allahabad, deposit the passport, seek permission before leaving the district, and maintain regular reporting to the local police station. Non-compliance with these conditions would result in legal consequences.

This detailed analysis covers the key aspects of the judgment, including the arguments presented, the reasoning behind the grant of bail, and the specific conditions imposed to ensure the applicant's adherence to legal requirements.