Prahit Singhal vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Prahit Singhal, is seeking bail in a criminal case involving allegations of cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC). The informant alleged that the applicant took a demand draft of Rs. 4,40,000/- on April 3, 2017, for purchasing machinery to make disposable plates, but failed to provide the machines or return the draft. The FIR was lodged approximately 8 months after the incident. The applicant claims innocence, false implication, and attributes the delay in providing the machines to increased rates after the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). He has been in jail since January 7, 2018, and has no prior criminal record. The State argued that a significant amount was misappropriated and sought security for the amount in question.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Prahit Singhal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The decision was based on the nature of the offense, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel, and the undertaking given by the applicant. As a condition for bail, the applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties, and crucially, to deposit Rs. 4,40,000/- by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt in the court concerned, to be invested in a nationalized bank and ultimately paid to the aggrieved person. This deposit is without prejudice to the applicant's defense during the trial. The court also laid down several conditions for the applicant's presence during trial proceedings and stipulated that breach of any condition or failure to deposit the amount would empower the trial court to cancel the bail and take the applicant into custody.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail given the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the applicant's explanation regarding GST implementation affecting machine prices? Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. The FIR was lodged with a delay of 8 months without plausible reason. The delay in providing the machines was due to increased rates after GST implementation. The applicant is cooperating with the investigation and has no other criminal antecedents. He has been in jail since January 7, 2018. Revenue/State: A huge amount has been misappropriated fraudulently and dishonestly. The applicant is not entitled to bail, and the amount in question should be secured by the Court.