Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41463 of 2021 Applicant :- Robil Agrawal @ Robin Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Agarwal,Tarun Agrawal,Vishal Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 404 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S. Sikandaraoo, District Hathras.
It is alleged in the FIR lodged on the basis of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the first informant is owner of a firm in the name and style of S.S. Steel Works, Kasganj Road. It is alleged that the informant is said to have purchased some goods from Smt Neeru Singhal, the proprietor of firm namely Balajee Stainless Steel, Hissar and had issued a cheque bearing No. 007920 dated 15.3.2019 to the tune of Rs. 8 Lacs drawn in Allahabad Bank, Degree College Road, Hathras and when the said cheque dishonoured, the informant received a notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act sent by co accused Smt Neeru Singhal through his Advocate. The said notice was replied by stating that neither the informant received any goods from the said firm of co accused Smt Neeru Singhal nor issued any cheque to her. It is further alleged that the informant also gave a notice to the Bank whereupon the Bank replied to the informant that the informant does not have any Bank Account in the said Branch and he has not been issued any cheque book of that serial number and neither such cheque was presented in the Bank for encashment. It is further alleged by the informant that it is not possible for him to disclose as to how, for what amount and who presented the said cheuqe in the Bank. It is further alleged that the informant knows that the accused applicant, who is allegedly proprietor of a firm namely, Vishal Interpriser runs a current account in the said Bank Branch.
It is further alleged that the informant came to know that the applicant as well as co accused Smt Neeru Singhal conspired together and prepared forged cheque and signature of the informant and also in order to grab Rs. 8 Lacs lodged a false case under Section 138 N.I. Act at District Hissar, Haryana, in which NBW has been issued against the informant. It is further alleged that when the informant is said to have contacted the applicant, he was threatened by him to anyhow realize the said amount.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per story of the FIR itself, the first informant on account of some business transaction with the firm of co accused Smt Neeru Singhal is said to have issued a cheque for Rs. 8 Lacs drawn in the bank of Allahabad Bank, Degree College Road, Hathras. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged on 5.9.2020 on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the sake of harassment of the applicant. It is contended that the first informant had issued a cheque for the goods purchased from co accused Niru Singhal and at no point of time the applicant had committed any offence as alleged. Applicant is in jail since 6.09.2021.
It is further contended that the informant is said to have purchased some goods from the firm of co accused Neeru Singhal, for which the alleged cheque was issued in favour of the co accused Smt Neeru Singhal but the same has been dishonoured and a notice was sent to the informant and the said case is pending at Hisar and the applicant has no concern with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the matter is purely of civil dispute.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He submits that the investigation is now complete and the charge sheet has been filed.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant- Robil Agrawal @ Robin Agarwal, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(ii) The applicant 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 IPC.
(iii) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021/RavindraKSingh