# Rohan Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 652
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-12
- **Case number:** Application U/s 482 No. 21148 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54587
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Section-437(6)-
Section
437 Cr.P.C. itself goes to show that any
person
accused
of
any
non-bailable
offence triable by Magistrate, is entitled to
be released on bail, if in case the trial is
not concluded within a period of 60 days
from the first date fixed for taking
evidence in the case, the satisfaction of
the Magistrate has to be recorded while
passing the order releasing such an
8 All. Rohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
653
accused on bail, however in case the
Magistrate
directs
otherwise,
reasons
have to be recorded in writing. In present
facts
of
the
case
Magistrate
while
rejecting the application of the applicant
has given detailed reasons for the same.
(Para 7)

Result Application u/s 482 CrPC rejected.
(E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where the payee or holder in due
course, as the case may be,
maintains the account, is situated;
or
(b)
if
the
cheque
is
presented for payment by the payee
or holder in due course, otherwise
through an account, the branch of
the drawee bank where the drawer
maintains the account, is situated.
Explanation.?For
the
purposes of clause (a), where a
cheque is delivered for collection at
any branch of the bank of the payee
or holder in due course, then, the
cheque shall be deemed to have
been delivered to the branch of the
bank in which the payee or holder
in due course, as the case may be,
maintains the account."

7. From the plain reading of the
aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that to
constitute the offence under Section 138 of
N.I. Act, the cheque must be presented for
encashment within its validity period and
after the receipt of intimation with regard to
dishonor of the cheque, the holder of the
cheque is required to issue demand notice
within a period of 30 days from the date of
intimation of dishonor of the cheque and
after the legal demand notice is issued and
served on the drawer of the cheque, the
holder of the cheque is required to wait for
a period of 15 days. When after expiry of
15 days, the demand notice is not complied
with by the drawer of the cheque only then
the cause of action of filing the complaint
under Section 138 N.I. Act would arise.
Thereafter, the complainant has a further
period of one month in terms of Section
142(1)(b) for filing the complaint.

8. In view of the aforesaid
observations, the observation made by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mamta
Gautam (supra) that "under Clause (b) of
Section 142, Negotiable Instruments Act,
the complaint can be filed within a period
of one month, from the date of service of
the notice" is in the considered opinion of
this Court, per incuriam as language of
Section 142(1)(b) is categorically clear
which says that one month period for filing
the complaint will start when the cause of
action arises under clause (c) of the proviso
to Section 138 of N.I. Act.

9. In view thereof, the instant
application lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 652
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 21148 of 2024

Rohan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sheshadri Trivedi, Shiv Babu Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Section-437(6)-
Section
437 Cr.P.C. itself goes to show that any
person
accused
of
any
non-bailable
offence triable by Magistrate, is entitled to
be released on bail, if in case the trial is
not concluded within a period of 60 days
from the first date fixed for taking
evidence in the case, the satisfaction of
the Magistrate has to be recorded while
passing the order releasing such an
8 All. Rohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
653
accused on bail, however in case the
Magistrate
directs
otherwise,
reasons
have to be recorded in writing. In present
facts
of
the
case
Magistrate
while
rejecting the application of the applicant
has given detailed reasons for the same.
(Para 7)

Result Application u/s 482 CrPC rejected.
(E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Arvind Kumar Vs St. of U.P., order dated
08.01.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 31262 of 2009

2. Saurabh Singh Chandel Vs St. of U.P., Neutral
Citation No.2021:AHC:81934

3. Suresh Verma Vs St.of U.P. & anr., Neutral
Citation No.2013:AHC:40699

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sheshadri Trivedi,
learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.
Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for
the State.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to set aside the
impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Banda as well as the entire proceeding of
Crl. Case No. 7658 of 2023 (State of U.P.
Vs. Roshan Singh) arising out of Case
Crime No. 531 of 2023, under sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, pending
against the applicant in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate Banda, District
Banda.

3. As per the allegations in the FIR
lodged by Poonam Gupta; Principal, Arya
Kanya Inter College, Kotwali Nagar,
Banda, when the re-examination 2018 for
the post of Village Development Officer
was going on, in the second meeting on
26.06.2023 at about 04:20 pm, a call was
received from the Control Room, Lucknow
regarding
examination
room
no.
4
informing that the bio-metric of one Ranjan
Gupta was found suspicious. On the
aforesaid, a team was constituted for
checking, in which the person sitting in
place of Ranjan Gupta was found to be
Roshan Singh, whose photograph and biometric fingerprint did not match with the
admit card of the original candidate Ranjan
Gupta. Information about the same was
sent to the Commission conducting the
examination, on the basis of which, an FIR
has been lodged.

4. The applicant was arrested and
he filed bail application No. 34031 of 2023,
which has been rejected by this Court, vide
order dated 22.02.2024. After investigation
charge sheet was submitted on 19.08.2023,
thereafter the case was committed and
charges under sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC were framed against the applicant
by order dated 05.09.2023 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Banda, 19.09.2023 was
the first date fixed for leading of evidence
by the prosecution fixing 04.10.2023 as the
next date. The witness of prosecution did
not appear on any of the dates and period of
more than 8 months elapsed without
producing a single witness, thus the
application dated 13.05.2024 was filed on
behalf of applicant before the learned trial
court as the trial of the present case has not
been concluded within more than a period
of eight months since first date fixed for
taking evidence in the case i.e. 19.09.2023,
hence the applicant may enlarged on bail in
accordance with provision of section
437(6) of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid
application has been rejected by order
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated
31.05.2024,
hence
the
present
petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail under section
437(6) of Cr.P.C. due to reason that the trial
could not conclude within 60 days from the
first date fixed for taking prosecution
evidence. He further submits that the
provisions of section 437(6) Cr.P.C. are
mandatory
in
nature
and
only
in
exceptional circumstances for the reasons
to be recorded a bail prayer may be refused
under section 437(6) Cr.P.C. The applicant
is jail since 29.06.2023. The first date fixed
for prosecution evidence was 19.09.2023
and since then the trial is pending with no
logical progress and only one witness i.e.
PW-1 Pushpa Singh who appeared before
the learned trial court on 24.05.2024 has
been examined and her cross examination
was also concluded on the same day. In
support of his submission he has relied
upon judgement and orders passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in case of
Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P., passed
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
31262 of 2009 vide order dated 08.01.2010,
in case of Saurabh Singh Chandel vs.
State
of
U.P.,
Neutral
Citation
No.2021:AHC:81934. Relying upon the
judgment of this Court in case of Suresh
Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.,
Neutral Citation No.2013:AHC:40699,
learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the court below has rejected the
application
without
considering
the
mandatory requirement of the provision u/s
437(6) Cr.P.C. The applicant is in jail since
29.06.2023. It is also not disputed that the
first date fixed for taking prosecution
evidence was 19.09.2023 and the trial has
not been concluded within 60 days from
that date. Thus as per the provision of
section 437(6) Cr.P.C., in non bailable
offence, if the trial is not concluded from
the first date fixed for evidence such person
is entitled to be released on bail and thus
the application has been illegally rejected
by the order impugned.

6. The learned AGA on the other
submits that in the present case it would be
appropriate to quote 437 (6) Cr.P.C. prior to
preceding with the arguement with the
case, which is as follows:-

"437. When bail may be
taken in case of non-bailable
offence.
(1)
When
any
person
accused of, or suspected of, the
commission of any non-bailable
offence is arrested or detained
without warrant by an officer in
charge of a police station or
appears or is brought before a
Court other than the High Court or
Court of Session, he may be
released on bail, but ---
(6) If, in any case triable by
a Magistrate, the trial of a person
accused
of
any
non-bailable
offence is not concluded within a
period of sixty days from the first
date fixed for taking evidence in the
case, such person shall, if he is in
custody during the whole of the
said period, be released on bail, to
the satisfaction of the Magistrate,
unless for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the Magistrate otherwise
directs."

7. He further submits that bare
reading of section 437 Cr.P.C. itself goes to
show that any person accused of any nonbailable offence triable by Magistrate, is
entitled to be released on bail, if in case the
8 All. Raju @ Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
655
trial is not concluded within a period of 60
days from the first date fixed for taking
evidence in the case, the satisfaction of the
Magistrate has to be recorded while passing
the order releasing such an accused on bail,
however in case the Magistrate directs
otherwise, reasons have to be recorded in
writing. In present facts of the case
Magistrate while rejecting the application
of the applicant has given detailed reasons
for the same.

8. Even otherwise, the bail
application of the applicant has already
been rejected by order dated 22.02.2024,
therefore, the present case amounts to
second bail application, thus the judgments
as relied upon by the counsel for the
applicant are not applicable in present facts
of the case as they are silent about the
situation where first bail application of the
applicant is rejected.

9. In view of the above, the
aforesaid prayer as made by learned
counsel for the applicant for setting aside
the order impugned is refused and the
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected
accordingly.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 655
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 37396 of 2012
With
Application U/s 482 No. 39186 of 2023

Raju @ Raj Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants:
Ram Raj Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Sections-320
&
482Petition for quashing entire proceedings
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307
IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act- this Court can
exercise its power vested under section
482 Cr.P.C. beyond the boundaries of
Section 320 Cr.P.C- Court can invoke its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even
in non- compoundable offence and can
quash the proceedings on the basis of
settlement arrived at between the parties
even in the cases of noncompoundable
offences
but
while
exercising
its
jurisdiction this Court must consider the
fact that whether the proceedings relates
to any serious and heinous offences and
whether the crime in question has impact
over the society. (Para 8, 17 & 18)

Result-Petition allowed n the light of the
compromise entered between the parties
and verified by the court concerned. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gian Singh Vs Punjab, reported in (2012)10
SCC 303

2. Nareinder Singh Vs St.of Pun. reported in
(2014) 9 SCC 466

3. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors.Vs St. of Guj.& anr.reported in
[(2017) 9 SCC 641]

4. St.of M. P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. reported
in (2019) 5 SCC 688

5. Arun Singh & ors.Vs St. of U. P. Through its
Secretary & anr. reported in 2020 (3) SCC 736

6. Ram Gopal & anr.Vs St.of M. P. reported in
[2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529]

7. Daxaben Vs The St.of Guj. & ors. 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 642