Monu v. State of U.P.). The operative part thereof is extracted herein below

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Bail No. 13170 of 2022 (Shivam Tripathi @ Shivam Pandit @ Monu vs. State of U.P.). The operative part thereof is extracted herein below:- "From the perusal of the record, it is found that as per the FIR when the jewellery and money were off and on found missing from the house of the first informant and in the night of 03.09.2022 again a theft took place in the house of the first informant at Lucknow when he was in his village, then an application was moved to S.P. Crime Branch, Lucknow by the first informant. By inquiry this fact came into light through CCTV Camera footage that the 23 years old sister of the first informant was going alongwith a bag outside the house and then only the fact came into light that she was being blackmailed and given threat by the present applicant since last one year that if she would not give him money and jewellery then her brother and nephew would be kidnapped and put to death. On being blackmailed and receiving the threats she was paying money and handing over the jewellery from her house to the applicant continuously. Later on when the theft was found in first informant's house situated at Gonda there also the first informant had to lodge named FIR against the applicant. In the present case when the present applicant was arrested by the police Rs.40 lakhs and two chain (gold) were recovered from him and there is confession of the applicant that by hypnotism he took the sister of the first informant in his control and confidence and started extorting money from her. Though, learned counsel for the applicant has filed the statement of the Branch Accountant Mahindra that he had given the amount to the applicant on loan for purchasing SUV at the excessive interest of 1% than the prevailing rate of interest and it is said that the whole money and jewellery recovered from him is his own. If we go through the statement of this accountant he has admitted that no source of income was shown by the applicant and it was the reason that the loan was given to him on 1% extra interest than the normal rate of interest. In the CCTV footage the sister of the first informant is seen carrying the bag outside her house, containing rupees and jewellery. The statement of the sister of the first informant is on record that the present applicant was the purohit of the first informant and when he came to know that it is she only taking care of entire money transactions of the house of the first informant he started hypnotizing her and under the effect of hypnotism he started extorting jewellery and money from the house of the first informant through her. A huge amount of money and jewellery is said to have extorted by the applicant from the house of the first informant. The recovered amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and two gold chains from the applicant are claimed to be the rupees and jewellery, which are extracted by him from the sister of the first informant. Though the applicant has claimed all the rupees and jewellery his own which were kept by him in the custody of the sister of the first informant and was being returned to the applicant on his demand. The story cooked up by the applicant prima facie does not inspire the confidence of the Court. After perusing the record in the light of submissions advanced at the bar, taking overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is, hereby, rejected." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.10.2022 having no criminal antecedents. Till date, the examination of PW-1 has not been concluded and the same is going on. The offence is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum punishment provided is up to 7 years. The applicant has already undergone a period of 2 years and 9 months in jail. Moreover, this is a second FIR lodged by the same complainant. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that due to a threat perception from the applicant, an application was given by the complainant to the prosecution, on which security was provided to the complainant. Thus, it is not a fit case for bail. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.10.2022 having no criminal antecedents; till date, the examination of PW-1 has not been concluded; the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; the offence is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum sentence under the offence in question is up to 7 years; the applicant has already undergone a period of 2 years and 9 months in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Shivam Tripathi @ Shivam Pandit @ Monu involved in Case Crime No. 245 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 411 IPC, Police Station- Gomti Nagar Vistar, District- Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Shravan

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Bail No. 13170 of 2022 (Shivam Tripathi @ Shivam Pandit @ Monu vs. State of U.P.). The operative part thereof is extracted herein below:- "From the perusal of the record, it is found that as per the FIR when the jewellery and money were off and on found missing from the house of the first informant and in the night of 03.09.2022 again a theft took place in the house of the first informant at Lucknow when he was in his village, then an application was moved to S.P. Crime Branch, Lucknow by the first informant. By inquiry this fact came into light through CCTV Camera footage that the 23 years old sister of the first informant was going alongwith a bag outside the house and then only the fact came into light that she was being blackmailed and given threat by the present applicant since last one year that if she would not give him money and jewellery then her brother and nephew would be kidnapped and put to death. On being blackmailed and receiving the threats she was paying money and handing over the jewellery from her house to the applicant continuously. Later on when the theft was found in first informant's house situated at Gonda there also the first informant had to lodge named FIR against the applicant. In the present case when the present applicant was arrested by the police Rs.40 lakhs and two chain (gold) were recovered from him and there is confession of the applicant that by hypnotism he took the sister of the first informant in his control and confidence and started extorting money from her. Though, learned counsel for the applicant has filed the statement of the Branch Accountant Mahindra that he had given the amount to the applicant on loan for purchasing SUV at the excessive interest of 1% than the prevailing rate of interest and it is said that the whole money and jewellery recovered from him is his own. If we go through the statement of this accountant he has admitted that no source of income was shown by the applicant and it was the reason that the loan was given to him on 1% extra interest than the normal rate of interest. In the CCTV footage the sister of the first informant is seen carrying the bag outside her house, containing rupees and jewellery. The statement of the sister of the first informant is on record that the present applicant was the purohit of the first informant and when he came to know that it is she only taking care of entire money transactions of the house of the first informant he started hypnotizing her and under the effect of hypnotism he started extorting jewellery and money from the house of the first informant through her. A huge amount of money and jewellery is said to have extorted by the applicant from the house of the first informant. The recovered amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and two gold chains from the applicant are claimed to be the rupees and jewellery, which are extracted by him from the sister of the first informant. Though the applicant has claimed all the rupees and jewellery his own which were kept by him in the custody of the sister of the first informant and was being returned to the applicant on his demand. The story cooked up by the applicant prima facie does not inspire the confidence of the Court. After perusing the record in the light of submissions advanced at the bar, taking overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is, hereby, rejected." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.10.2022 having no criminal antecedents. Till date, the examination of PW-1 has not been concluded and the same is going on. The offence is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum punishment provided is up to 7 years. The applicant has already undergone a period of 2 years and 9 months in jail. Moreover, this is a second FIR lodged by the same complainant. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that due to a threat perception from the applicant, an application was given by the complainant to the prosecution, on which security was provided to the complainant. Thus, it is not a fit case for bail. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.10.2022 having no criminal antecedents; till date, the examination of PW-1 has not been concluded; the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; the offence is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum sentence under the offence in question is up to 7 years; the applicant has already undergone a period of 2 years and 9 months in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Shivam Tripathi @ Shivam Pandit @ Monu involved in Case Crime No. 245 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 411 IPC, Police Station- Gomti Nagar Vistar, District- Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Shravan