Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Prajapati vs State Of Up Through Its Principal ... on 30 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19723 of 2022
Applicant :- Sanjay Prajapati
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Through Its Principal Secretary Home
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 151 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 409 IPC, P.S. Chetganj, District Varanasi.
3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is said to have been induced to invest heavily in the firm by the name of M/s Nil Giri Infra City Private Limited but the amount invested has not been returned to the informant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a reading of the F.I.R. will make it evident that no allegation whatsoever has been specifically levelled against the applicant with regard to any wrongful inducement being made for the said investment. It is also submitted that the applicant was the Director in the company concerned up till May, 2015 whereafter he submitted his resignation which was accepted and the investments have been allegedly made after the aforesaid time period. Learned counsel further submits that the criminal history of the applicant has already been explained in paragraph 19 of the affidavit filed in support of application in which 17 cases including the present F.I.R. have been indicated and explained and in which 10 cases the applicant has already been enlarged on bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that although admittedly the applicant resigned from the post of Director in the company but even thereafter presented himself as a Salesman and continued to induce to make investment in the company concerned.
6. Considering aforesaid submissions and upon perusal of material on record, it appears that no specific allegation has been made against the applicant in the F.I.R. Now even in the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which in fact it has been stated that one Ritu Singh was Managing Director of the company concerned along with Vikas Singh. It has been submitted that the aforesaid Ritu Singh and Vikas Singh the alleged Directors of the company have been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 7th July, 2022 passed in bail application No. 27009 of 2022. The cases implicating the applicant in other case crime numbers are also similar in nature which relates to the transaction of the aforesaid company. The applicant is also admittedly have refuted to be ceased as Director of company in the year 2015 i.e. prior to the alleged investment made.
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. 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.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Sanjay Prajapati, 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 sufficient 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 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.
Order Date :- 30.8.2022
Prabhat
