Rajendra Kumar Jain vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of Rajendra Kumar Jain. The Court considered the arguments advanced by both sides, the nature of the accusations, and the antecedents of the applicant. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1", the Court found the applicant liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The Court distinguished the applicant's case from that of the main accused, Sachin Jain. The applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds and adhering to specific conditions, including making himself available for interrogation, not tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission, and appearing before the trial court. The observations made were declared to be exclusively for deciding the bail application and not to affect the trial.

Facts

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Rajendra Kumar Jain (the applicant) in Case Crime No. 378 of 2023, registered under Sections 409 and 420 IPC at Police Station- Civil Lines, District Moradabad. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, along with his son Sachin Jain and Onkarnath Tripathi, usurped Rs. 2.44 crores taken for coal supply, neither returning the money nor supplying the coal. The applicant's counsel argues that the firm, M/s Paras Coal and Cokes Sales India, is in Sachin Jain's name, who is the sole proprietor and responsible for the company's affairs. The applicant claims no funds were transferred to his personal account, and he is implicated solely due to his relationship with his son. The prosecution contends the applicant and his son are colluding in the firm's operations. The applicant has a criminal history of two other FIRs, though proceedings in one are stayed and he is on bail in the other.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust concerning a sum of Rs. 2.44 crores, and the applicant's alleged involvement with his son's firm, M/s Paras Coal and Cokes Sales India? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the firm is a proprietorship in the name of Sachin Jain, the applicant's son, who is solely responsible for its affairs. GST forms and account details are in Sachin Jain's name, and no amount was transferred to the applicant's personal account. The applicant claims false implication due to his relationship with his son. They also highlighted that proceedings in one of the prior FIRs are stayed and bail has been granted in another. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application, arguing that the applicant and Sachin Jain are hand in glove in running the firm. They contended that technical grounds should not lead to anticipatory bail and pointed to the applicant's criminal history of two other cases.