Court rendered in the cases of Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Criminal)

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that though the applicant has been shown to be arrested on spot, but, he was arrested elsewhere. He next added that the statements of the informant and the other witnesses are evident that the main role is assigned to the co-accused person namely, Ravi Kant @ Ravi Kant Mishra and Shobhit Pathak and they have already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 15-10-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6388 of 2024 and the order dated 15-10-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4613 of 2024 respectively. He submits that even the statement of the victim also indicates that the main role is assigned to the co-accused, Ravi Kant @ Ravi Kant Mishra and Shobhit Pathak and there is no other cogent piece of evidence against the applicant with respect to his involvement in the offence. He next submits that the applicant has explained 9 cases criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 22-12-2023. He also submits that since the chargesheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility that the applicant will flee away from the investigation proceedings or would tamper the evidences. Further submission is that the charges have been framed, but, there are as many as 95 witnesses and no one has been examined yet and therefore, the conclusion of the trial would take considerable period of time. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024 decided on 9 August, 2024 and Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021(3) SCC 713) and submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgments abovesaid and the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was arrested on spot and his role has been distinguished by this court while granting bail to the co-accused, Ravi Kant @ Ravi Kant Mishra and Shobhit Pathak and there is ample evidence against the applicant that he was involved in committing the offence and there are as many as 9 cases criminal history of the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the statement of the informant including the victim as well as other witnesses are apparent that they have named co-accused, Ravi Kant @ Ravi Kant Mishra and Shobhit Pathak so as mainly involved in committing offence as abduction is concerned. Further the applicant has explained 9 cases criminal history; the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; there are 95 witnesses in the matter and no one has been examined yet and it seems that the same will take much more time for conclusion of the trial coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Vishal Verma, involved in the aforementioned 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that though the applicant has been shown to be arrested on spot, but, he was arrested elsewhere. He next added that the statements of the informant and the other witnesses are evident that the main role is assigned to the co-accused person namely, Ravi Kant @ Ravi Kant Mishra and Shobhit Pathak and they have already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 15-10-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6388 of 2024 and the order dated 15-10-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4613 of 2024 respectively. He submits that even the statement of the victim also indicates that the main role is assigned to the co-accused, Ravi Kant @ Ravi Kant Mishra and Shobhit Pathak and there is no other cogent piece of evidence against the applicant with respect to his involvement in the offence. He next submits that the applicant has explained 9 cases criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 22-12-2023. He also submits that since the chargesheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility that the applicant will flee away from the investigation proceedings or would tamper the evidences. Further submission is that the charges have been framed, but, there are as many as 95 witnesses and no one has been examined yet and therefore, the conclusion of the trial would take considerable period of time. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024 decided on 9 August, 2024 and Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021(3) SCC 713) and submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgments abovesaid and the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was arrested on spot and his role has been distinguished by this court while granting bail to the co-accused, Ravi Kant @ Ravi Kant Mishra and Shobhit Pathak and there is ample evidence against the applicant that he was involved in committing the offence and there are as many as 9 cases criminal history of the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the statement of the informant including the victim as well as other witnesses are apparent that they have named co-accused, Ravi Kant @ Ravi Kant Mishra and Shobhit Pathak so as mainly involved in committing offence as abduction is concerned. Further the applicant has explained 9 cases criminal history; the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; there are 95 witnesses in the matter and no one has been examined yet and it seems that the same will take much more time for conclusion of the trial coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Vishal Verma, involved in the aforementioned 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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; (3) 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.; (4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench