High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. This application has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.0264 of 2022, under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 427, 467, 468, 471 of IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur. As per contents of FIR in which applicant has not been nominated, allegation levelled is that the informant was induced to make investment in a Company by name of Shine City Proxima Developer on the pretext that he would be allotted an immoveable property in lieu of investment made. Allegation levelled despite payment having been made, no immoveable property was handed to the applicant nor was any sale-deed executed. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that applicant is neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation being levelled against him. It is submitted that even as per FIR, entire amount has been provided to the Company through nominated person Dharmendra Jaiswal. It is submitted that there no direct involvement of applicant in alleged deceiving of the informant. It is next submitted that the co-accused Vinay Kumar has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 21.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3987 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant claims parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has duly explained the criminal history in para no. 25 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 8.1.2025. 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. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that although the applicant is not named in the FIR but is in fact one of the Directors in the Company and was fully aware with regard to illegal activities of Company. It is however admitted that applicant's previous criminal history pertaining to the same allegation has been explained. 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." Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant is neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation been levelled against him of making any promise or false inducement for the informant to make investment in the Company. The co-accused Vinay Kumar has already been granted bail. The aspect of improper management of the Company at the behest of applicant would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has duly been explained and is in jail since 08.01.2025. 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 on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Abdul Hak involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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 :- 30.7.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. This application has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.0264 of 2022, under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 427, 467, 468, 471 of IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur. As per contents of FIR in which applicant has not been nominated, allegation levelled is that the informant was induced to make investment in a Company by name of Shine City Proxima Developer on the pretext that he would be allotted an immoveable property in lieu of investment made. Allegation levelled despite payment having been made, no immoveable property was handed to the applicant nor was any sale-deed executed. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that applicant is neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation being levelled against him. It is submitted that even as per FIR, entire amount has been provided to the Company through nominated person Dharmendra Jaiswal. It is submitted that there no direct involvement of applicant in alleged deceiving of the informant. It is next submitted that the co-accused Vinay Kumar has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 21.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3987 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant claims parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has duly explained the criminal history in para no. 25 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 8.1.2025. 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. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that although the applicant is not named in the FIR but is in fact one of the Directors in the Company and was fully aware with regard to illegal activities of Company. It is however admitted that applicant's previous criminal history pertaining to the same allegation has been explained. 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." Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant is neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation been levelled against him of making any promise or false inducement for the informant to make investment in the Company. The co-accused Vinay Kumar has already been granted bail. The aspect of improper management of the Company at the behest of applicant would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has duly been explained and is in jail since 08.01.2025. 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 on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Abdul Hak involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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 :- 30.7.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench