Aryan Amit v. State of U.P.) decided on

and Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Manoj Tripathi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Hariparwat, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that identically placed co-accused Nishant Sharma @ Rinki has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29797 of 2024 which is annexure-R.A.-2 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 20.01.2025. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant is in jail since

19.07.2024

5. Per contra, learned counsel for State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument as aforesaid.

6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that co-accused Nishant Sharma @ Rinki has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024. The case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Nishant Sharma @ Rinki. The said order reads as under :- "1. Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Nishant Sharma @ Rinki, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 337 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B I.P.C., registered at P.S. Hari Parwat, District Agra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not intend to file any affidavit for which time was sought on 05.09.2024 since charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant. He submits that the matter be heard and argued on merits.

4. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. lodged on 29.8.2021 at about 23:50 hours under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B I.P.C. by Hukum Singh, Inspector, Field Unit S.T.F., Agra, is that there was a complaint of certain persons that false loan have been got disbursed from the bank in their names without their consent and even they have not applied for the same, on which the S.T.F. was entrusted with the investigation and during investigation they came to know of certain persons involved in the same and conducted raid, in which the applicant was arrested. From his possession many incriminating documents were recovered. The F.I.R. is thus being lodged after recovery and arrest of the applicant. Further co-accused Arun Parasar @ Somi, Manoj Tripathi, and Nishant Sharma@Rinki were also arrested and there were recovery also effected from them.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the alleged recovery of about 62 files pertaining to loan are alleged to have been recovered from the applicant but the same are not incriminating in any manner. It is argued that there is no independent witness to the said recovery as would appear from page nos. 88 and 89 of the paper book being the internal pages of recovery memo. It is further submitted that the applicant was previously involved in one case which is a petty offence and is on bail, paragraph 21 of the affidavit has been placed before this Court. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter against the applicant. It is submitted that the co-accused Aryan @ Amit and Sandeep Sharma have been granted bail by this Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 26.07.2022 and 26.04.2023, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, the details of which are as under :- (i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6360 of 2022 (Aryan @ Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 26.07.2022. (ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54935 of 2021 (Sandeep Sharma vs. State of U.P.) decided on 26.04.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

7. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the files regarding loan have been recovered from the applicant. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted after conclusion of investigation. The co-accused Aryan @ Amit and Sandeep Sharma have been granted bail vide orders dated 26.07.2022 and 26.04.2023.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant - Nishant Sharma @ Rinki, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed."

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Let the applicant Manoj Tripathi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

9. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

10. The bail application is allowed. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Manoj MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

and Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Manoj Tripathi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Hariparwat, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that identically placed co-accused Nishant Sharma @ Rinki has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29797 of 2024 which is annexure-R.A.-2 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 20.01.2025. It is further submitted while placing paragraph 18 of the affidavit that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant is in jail since

19.07.2024

5. Per contra, learned counsel for State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument as aforesaid.

6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that co-accused Nishant Sharma @ Rinki has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024. The case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Nishant Sharma @ Rinki. The said order reads as under :- "1. Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Nishant Sharma @ Rinki, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 337 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B I.P.C., registered at P.S. Hari Parwat, District Agra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not intend to file any affidavit for which time was sought on 05.09.2024 since charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant. He submits that the matter be heard and argued on merits.

4. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. lodged on 29.8.2021 at about 23:50 hours under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B I.P.C. by Hukum Singh, Inspector, Field Unit S.T.F., Agra, is that there was a complaint of certain persons that false loan have been got disbursed from the bank in their names without their consent and even they have not applied for the same, on which the S.T.F. was entrusted with the investigation and during investigation they came to know of certain persons involved in the same and conducted raid, in which the applicant was arrested. From his possession many incriminating documents were recovered. The F.I.R. is thus being lodged after recovery and arrest of the applicant. Further co-accused Arun Parasar @ Somi, Manoj Tripathi, and Nishant Sharma@Rinki were also arrested and there were recovery also effected from them.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the alleged recovery of about 62 files pertaining to loan are alleged to have been recovered from the applicant but the same are not incriminating in any manner. It is argued that there is no independent witness to the said recovery as would appear from page nos. 88 and 89 of the paper book being the internal pages of recovery memo. It is further submitted that the applicant was previously involved in one case which is a petty offence and is on bail, paragraph 21 of the affidavit has been placed before this Court. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter against the applicant. It is submitted that the co-accused Aryan @ Amit and Sandeep Sharma have been granted bail by this Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 26.07.2022 and 26.04.2023, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, the details of which are as under :- (i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6360 of 2022 (Aryan @ Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 26.07.2022. (ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54935 of 2021 (Sandeep Sharma vs. State of U.P.) decided on 26.04.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

7. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the files regarding loan have been recovered from the applicant. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted after conclusion of investigation. The co-accused Aryan @ Amit and Sandeep Sharma have been granted bail vide orders dated 26.07.2022 and 26.04.2023.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant - Nishant Sharma @ Rinki, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed."

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Let the applicant Manoj Tripathi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

9. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

10. The bail application is allowed. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Manoj MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad