Rajeev Kuchchhal vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court decided to grant bail to the applicant, Rajeev Kuchchhal, in Case Crime No. 1141 of 2018. The primary reasoning for granting bail was based on the material on record, which suggested a lack of direct evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged offenses and the firm in question. The Court also took into account the special circumstances of the prevailing lockdown in the district and the directions issued by the High Court in PIL No. 564 of 2020. The Court applied the dictum of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the right to life and personal liberty. The applicant was directed to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the jail authorities. However, within four weeks of the lifting of the complete lockdown and resumption of normal court functioning, the applicant must furnish two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. Failure to comply with this condition would result in the cancellation of bail. The Court also imposed several conditions for the bail, including not tampering with evidence, cooperating with the trial, not indulging in criminal activity, and remaining present before the trial court on fixed dates.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Rajeev Kuchchhal, the applicant, seeking release from Case Crime No. 1141 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The applicant claims he was falsely implicated based on the recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- and a mobile phone. He asserts no connection to P.N. Enterprises, the firm allegedly involved, nor to its GST registration. The applicant states he was arrested on 18.06.2019 while at his grocery store in Delhi, awaiting a supplier. He alleges false implication due to refusing to supply goods on credit to police officials. The sole evidence linking him is a mobile phone that he denies owning or using. The charge sheet has been filed, and the applicant has been in jail since 20.06.2019. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the applicant's claims.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1141 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., considering the material on record and the prevailing lockdown conditions? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant contends he has been falsely implicated, with no direct evidence connecting him to the alleged offenses or the firm P.N. Enterprises. He claims the recovered mobile phone is not his and was falsely attributed to him. He highlights his business in Delhi and his presence there at the time of arrest. He also notes that similar cases lodged on the same day resulted in bail for him and that he has been incarcerated since June 20, 2019. The applicant relies on the Apex Court's dictum in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Arguments for the State: The State opposed the bail application but did not dispute the factual assertions made by the applicant.