Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0702 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420 & 120-B IPC(Now BNSS), registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is said to be one of the director of investment company which is subsidiary by the name of Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society in which the informant and his family members were induced to make investment which however has not been returned.

4. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and although he has been indicated as Director in the said company but there is no allegation that he ever met the applicant or obtained any investment personally for the purposes of investment in the company.

5. Learned counsel has sought parity with another Director of the firm namely Om Shankar Kaushal who has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Application No.13225 of 2024 primarily on the ground of age of the applicant who in the said case was 81 years of age and in the present case is 74 years old. It is submitted that similar nature of forty one FIRs have been lodged against the applicant including the present case and he has already been enlarged on bail in forty of the said cases as indicated in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in support of application. Applicant is under incarceration since 21.08.2021.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant being the Director of the Company would be vicariously liable for investment made in the Company. However he admits the fact that in the case of Om Shankar Kaushal as well, the said person was a Director in the company and has been enlarged on bail primarily on the ground of age.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant and Om Shankar Kaushal have been indicated as Director in the said Company but the applicant would have parity with the said Om Shankar Kaushal primarily on the ground of age factor and age related aliment. The aspects of his involvement in the Company as a Director would be subject matter of trial.

9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Vasudev Goswami @ 11. Let applicant, Basudev Goswami, involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 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. (ii) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Subodh/-

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0702 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420 & 120-B IPC(Now BNSS), registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is said to be one of the director of investment company which is subsidiary by the name of Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society in which the informant and his family members were induced to make investment which however has not been returned.

4. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and although he has been indicated as Director in the said company but there is no allegation that he ever met the applicant or obtained any investment personally for the purposes of investment in the company.

5. Learned counsel has sought parity with another Director of the firm namely Om Shankar Kaushal who has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Application No.13225 of 2024 primarily on the ground of age of the applicant who in the said case was 81 years of age and in the present case is 74 years old. It is submitted that similar nature of forty one FIRs have been lodged against the applicant including the present case and he has already been enlarged on bail in forty of the said cases as indicated in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in support of application. Applicant is under incarceration since 21.08.2021.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant being the Director of the Company would be vicariously liable for investment made in the Company. However he admits the fact that in the case of Om Shankar Kaushal as well, the said person was a Director in the company and has been enlarged on bail primarily on the ground of age.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant and Om Shankar Kaushal have been indicated as Director in the said Company but the applicant would have parity with the said Om Shankar Kaushal primarily on the ground of age factor and age related aliment. The aspects of his involvement in the Company as a Director would be subject matter of trial.

9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Vasudev Goswami @ 11. Let applicant, Basudev Goswami, involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 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. (ii) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Subodh/-