Shubham v. State of U.P.), a copy of which has been brought on record
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141351 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25418 of 2025 Applicant :- Shubham Bansal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yagvalkya Pandey, learned AGA for the State Respondent and perused the entire material available on record. 2. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application filed by the present applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10183 of 2025 (Shubham Vs. State of U.P.), a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the bail application. 3. The applicant, Subham Bansal, has filed this second bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 70 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of the I.P.C. and Section 66/66-C of the Informant Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of the trial. 4. In support of this second bail application, learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the entire submissions made in the first bail application, which are not necessary to mention herein again by this Court. 5. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. He further submits that after filing of charge-sheet, the concerned court has taken cognizance but trial has not even initiated and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. He further submits that the applicant was never absconder in the present case and has never misused the liberty of interim anticipatory bail granted to him and has always participated in the investigation and remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The applicant himself has surrendered before the court on 23.01.2025 and he is rendering full cooperation in the trial but the trial is not yet commenced till date. He submits that neither the applicant nor his family members are the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transactions. 6. The applicant has been implicated in the present case with regard to the Bank Account of Satya Raj (Contractor) and another Account of Vivek Traders and in these accounts it is alleged that the money has been transferred. He further submits that two Bank Account Numbers wherein complicity of the applicant is stated to have been found by the Investigating Officer and those Bank Account Numbers were in the name of Satya Raj Contractor, Proprietor Sanjay Singh and Vivek Traders, Proprietor Guddu Kapasiya and the Mobile Number which were linked with the Account of Satya Raj Contractor was 8506044589 and the Mobile Number which were linked with the Bank Account of Vivek Traders were 7838449510, 837784275 and 7838449510 and these mobile numbers are not registered in the name of the applicant. He further submits that owner of the firm namely Vivek Traders is Guddu Kapasia, in whose bank account the alleged transaction is stated to have been made, has not been made accused. He further submits that the other accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar, Pratap Singh, Guddu Kapasia and others, who are the real beneficiaries, have not been made accused whereas the applicant has made the escape goat in the present case. 7. He further submits that during the course of investigation, one Savesh @ Sanu and Emeka @ Alex (Nigerian Citizen) have been arrested but they have not named the present accused- applicant involving him in the present case, a copy of statement of the aforesaid two persons has also been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. It is further alleged that one Nigerian Citizen namely Emeka @ Alex, is stated to have hacked the bank server and in his statement he has not taken the name of the applicant. Neither any amount has been transferred in the bank account of the applicant nor in the accounts of his family members. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if prosecution story is accepted as stated, then also only Section 66/66-C of the Informant Technology Act would attract against the applicant. In Section 66/66-C of the Information Technology Act, the maximum punishment is upto 3 years if offence proved. He, therefore, submits that on the above grounds, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that on the similar footing co-accused Harsh Bansal has enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar vide order dated 27.09.2024 and the case of the present applicant is on similar footing as such, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that the offences are punishable maximum upto 7 years punishment. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.01.2025 and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Hence, the bail has been prayed for. 9. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant, Shubham Bansal, involved in the aforesaid 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 that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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. (v) 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. 11. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 v.k.updh. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad