Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7305 of 2022
Applicant :- Shailendra Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Ali Jibran,Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prakhar Misra
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Anup Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nadeem Murtaza and Sri Vikash Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prakhar Mishra, learned counsel for informant and Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Shailendra Yadav under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge on bail in Case Crime No. 894 of 2021, under Section 409, 420, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, during the pendency of the trial.
Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 14.11.2021 has been lodged against four named persons who are ex-directors, directors and chartered accountant of the company Piscesia Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. (PPTPL)" under Section 409, 420, 511 I.P.C. stating therein that the accused persons committed forgery and loss to the company by conspiracy. In this regard one Company Petition bearing No. 32 of 2021 has been filed by the first informant before National Company Law Tribunal (N.C.L.T.), Allahabad which is pending till today.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that there is no cogent evidence collected during course of investigation that the applicant and other co-accused persons misappropriated criminal breach of trust with regard to the assets and money of company.
It is further submitted that the other named co-accused persons Vandana Yadav, Vivek Kumar, Tushar have filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the other four F.I.Rs. which have been lodged by the same first informant against the same co-accused persons. The allegations of the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 894 and 897 are verbatim similar in which interim protection has been granted. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.06.2022. Criminal history of other two cases has been explained in para no. 6 of the rejoinder affidavit.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and jointly submitted that the F.I.R. of the present case has not been challenged by any of the Directors who are named including the present applicant.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it prima-facie appears that:
(a) the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.;
(b) the F.I.R. has been lodged under Section 409, 420 & 511 I.P.C. and the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 409, 420, 120-B I.P.C.
(c) the first informant has filed a Company Petition bearing No. 32 of 2021 against the applicant and other co-accused persons with regard to mismanagement/forgery and caused loss to the company, is still pending before N.C.L.T., Allahabad;
(d) the application with regard to opening of the new account is still pending consideration before the N.C.L.T. Allahabad.
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Shailendra Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.
(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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 22.8.2022
VPS
