# Ram Pratap (In Jail) v. State of U.P - **Citation:** Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 33603 of 2017 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-03-03 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 33603 of 2017 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pratap-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46328 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Law-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 376-C, 354-D, 342 , 506 & Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Section 439-application-allowedit is a complete matter of quid pro quo-greed for extracting money advanced the prosecutrix for hatching a conspiracy against the accused and tried to blackmail him.(Para 31) At the stage of considering bail application, detailed examination of the merits or demerits of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, should be avoided. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case such as nature and severity of punishment, character, behaviour, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses.(Para 17 to 23) The application is allowed. (E-6) List of cases cited:- ## Text 3-5 All. Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. 1371 mandatory requirements under Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act." 51. The present case involves a scam of huge magnitude involving money of 42000 employees of the Three Electricity Corporations who had invested it with a hope that they would get good return on it at the time they would need money. Trust has been breached in criminal conspiracy by the accused which has resulted huge loss to the two Trusts resultantly to the employees. The accused is an influential person. The money trail is yet to be completely discovered and, therefore, at this stage, the accused-applicant cannot be released on bail. 52. The trial court in well considered order has rejected the bail application of the accused applicant. I have not been persuaded to take a different view than taken by the trial court. In view thereof, the bail application of the accused, Sudhanshu Dwivedi is rejected. 53. So far as bail application of the accused-applicant, Vikas Chawla is concerned, as per the prosecution version, name of the accused-applicant has come into light during the course of Investigation. Role of the the accused-applicant in the offence is that of receiving brokerage amount from DHFL directly into his bank account which the accused failed to disclose/ account for as to how and why he has received the said amount into his account. 54. The accused has received huge brokerage amount of Rs.5.69 crores in his account from DHFL directly for which he has not accounted properly and satisfactorily.This is a documentary evidence. He has not been able to show anything for having any connection with DHFL or having any business relation with DHFL. The allegation against the accusedapplicant is that he along with others have criminally conspired to commit the offence by receiving the said brokerage amount from the DHFL. Direct brokerage details are part of the case diary which prima facie reveals that the several times amounts were transmitted by the DHFL to several companies. The said brokerage amount is in crores. The accused company's name also find place at Serial No.4 and Serial No.14 which reveals that the brokerage amount has also been received by the company of the accused. 55. Whether the accused had knowledge of the above mentioned transactions with the DHFL or the Chartered Accountant had kept him in dark, is a matter of Investigation and evidence which would not be seen at this stage. 56. Considering the allegation and the evidence available on record and the fact that a deep rooted conspiracy involved in the present case, I do not find it to be appropriate to release the accused applicant on bail at this stage and thus, his bail application is also rejected. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1371 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 33603 of 2017 Ram Pratap ...Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan, Abhilasha Singh, Sri Ashutosh Yadav, Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, Sri Shyam Lal, Sri Gaurav Kumar Counsel for the Opposite Party: 1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A.G.A. A. Criminal Law--Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 498-A, 304- Section 3⁄4 Indian Penal Code, 1860application-adjournment-Counsel for applicant did not appear to argue-the applicant is in jail for 3 years- counsel did not show any interest to argue the matter.(Para 2) The matter is adjourned. (E-6) (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. A request has been made by Sri Gaurav Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant to adjourn this matter today. 2. This bail application is pending since 2017 and applicant is in jail since 17.08.2016. It appears that learned counsel for last more than three and half years did not make any attempt to argue the case and allowed detention of his client in jail. Even today, he did not show any interest by arguing the matter. He does not want to give a chance to his client to celebrate Holi at his residence. 3. Under these circumstances, I have no option but to adjourn this matter for today. 4. List in the next cause list. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1372 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 44814 of 2019 Swami Chinmayanand @ Krishna Pal Singh ...Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Rajrshi Gupta, Sri Manish Singh, Sri Raj Kumar Singh Chauhan Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A., Sri R.K. Jain, Sri Swetashwa Agarwal A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 376-C, 354-D, 342 , 506 & Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Section 439-application-allowedit is a complete matter of quid pro quo-greed for extracting money advanced the prosecutrix for hatching a conspiracy against the accused and tried to blackmail him.(Para 31) At the stage of considering bail application, detailed examination of the merits or demerits of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, should be avoided. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case such as nature and severity of punishment, character, behaviour, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses.(Para 17 to 23) The application is allowed. (E-6) List of cases cited:- 1. St. of U.P. Thru CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 2. Shri P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI in Crl. Appeal No. 1603 of 2019 3. Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. UOI & anr.in W.P.(Crl) No. 67 of 2017