Bail granted with stringent conditions; passport surrender, no travel, and strict adherence to trial procedures mandated
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has granted bail to Rajesh Bothra, an accused in a high-profile financial fraud case involving M/s Rotomac Exim Pvt. Ltd. The decision was delivered by Justice Rajeev Singh on April 7, 2026. Bothra, who has been in judicial custody since December 2025, is implicated in a case concerning fraudulent merchant trade transactions that allegedly caused significant financial losses to Allahabad Bank.
The case, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), includes serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document), as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations stem from a complaint about the fraudulent diversion and siphoning of funds by M/s Rotomac Exim Pvt. Ltd., with Bothra accused of being a key player in these transactions.
The court, while granting bail, imposed stringent conditions to ensure that the trial proceedings are not hampered. Bothra is required to furnish a personal bond of INR 50,00,000 along with two sureties of the same amount. Additionally, he must surrender his passport to the court, refrain from leaving the country, and comply with all trial court procedures. The court emphasized that Bothra should not commit any similar offenses or interfere with the evidence or witnesses related to the case.
The decision was influenced by the fact that the charge-sheet was filed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Bothra was not arrested during the investigation. The court noted that there was no evidence of Bothra misusing his liberty prior to his arrest, thereby supporting the decision to grant bail. The court also referenced previous judgments, including Bacchi Devi v. State of U.P. and Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, to underscore the appropriateness of bail in circumstances where the accused was not arrested during the investigation.
Bothra's counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated and highlighted his cooperation during the investigation, despite travel restrictions due to the pandemic. They also pointed out that Bothra has been granted bail in similar cases and that there is no immediate possibility of the trial's conclusion.
Opposing the bail plea, the CBI's counsel highlighted Bothra's role as a director in companies allegedly involved in manipulating financial transactions to fulfill bank conditions fraudulently. Despite these contentions, the court found that the conditions imposed would sufficiently address concerns about trial integrity and potential absconding.
The court directed the trial to proceed expeditiously and warned that any breach of the bail conditions could lead to its cancellation. This decision is seen as a crucial step in balancing the rights of the accused with the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process in financial fraud cases.
Bottom Line:
Bail granted to an accused in a case involving financial fraud on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and adhering to specific terms to ensure trial proceedings are not hampered.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 439, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, Section 229A I.P.C./269 B.N.S., Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S., Section 174A I.P.C./209 B.N.S., Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.
Rajesh Bothra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2879951
