High Court · 2025

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.84 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, applicant along with co- accused is shown to be a Director in the Company involved in sale and purchase of plots. As per allegations, the informant has paid a sum of Rs.2,53,132/- in the aforesaid Company but subsequently came to knowledge that the Managing Director and other Director of Company have been taken into custody and there is grave apprehension that sale-deed for which amount has been deposited would not be executed by the nominated persons.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on the basis of apprehension and without any allegation that the informant was actually defrauded of the amount invested in the Company. It is submitted that the Company is a bona fide vendor and has admittedly received the aforesaid amount from the informant but the remaining amount Rs.16,215/- has not yet been deposited by the informant due to which the sale-deed could not be executed.

5. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the fact that co-accused and Managing Director of the Company Ratan Chandra Dwivedi has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Application No.10738 of 2022 specifically indicating his submission that sale-deed would be executed in favour of informant subject to the condition that remaining amount is deposited. It is submitted that it is the said Ratan Chandra Dwivedi who is empowered to execute sale-deed on behalf of Company. It is also submitted that previous criminal history of 32 cases have already been explained in the afÏdavit while applicant is under incarceration since 14.04.2023.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that co- accused and Managing Director of the Company has already been enlarged on bail with the aforesaid undertaking being recorded in the order. It is also admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

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 FIR has been lodged only on an allegation of apprehension of being defrauded by the nominated persons. It is also evident that Managing Director of the Company Ratan Chandra Dwivedi has already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above with the order also indicating his undertaking that sale-deed would be executed in favour of informant once the remaining amount is deposited. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

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.

11. Let applicant, Ashutosh Tripathi, 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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 17.4.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.84 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, applicant along with co- accused is shown to be a Director in the Company involved in sale and purchase of plots. As per allegations, the informant has paid a sum of Rs.2,53,132/- in the aforesaid Company but subsequently came to knowledge that the Managing Director and other Director of Company have been taken into custody and there is grave apprehension that sale-deed for which amount has been deposited would not be executed by the nominated persons.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on the basis of apprehension and without any allegation that the informant was actually defrauded of the amount invested in the Company. It is submitted that the Company is a bona fide vendor and has admittedly received the aforesaid amount from the informant but the remaining amount Rs.16,215/- has not yet been deposited by the informant due to which the sale-deed could not be executed.

5. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the fact that co-accused and Managing Director of the Company Ratan Chandra Dwivedi has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Application No.10738 of 2022 specifically indicating his submission that sale-deed would be executed in favour of informant subject to the condition that remaining amount is deposited. It is submitted that it is the said Ratan Chandra Dwivedi who is empowered to execute sale-deed on behalf of Company. It is also submitted that previous criminal history of 32 cases have already been explained in the afÏdavit while applicant is under incarceration since 14.04.2023.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that co- accused and Managing Director of the Company has already been enlarged on bail with the aforesaid undertaking being recorded in the order. It is also admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

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 FIR has been lodged only on an allegation of apprehension of being defrauded by the nominated persons. It is also evident that Managing Director of the Company Ratan Chandra Dwivedi has already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above with the order also indicating his undertaking that sale-deed would be executed in favour of informant once the remaining amount is deposited. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

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.

11. Let applicant, Ashutosh Tripathi, 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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 17.4.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench