Allahabad High Court
Anoop Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17305 of 2022
Applicant :- Anoop Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur,Ankit Shukla,Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Babita Upadhyay,Sanjeev Kumar Gaur
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ankit Shukla learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Ms. Babita Upadhyay learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 82 of 2022 under Section 420 and 66D of IT Act at P.S. Amaria Pilibhit.
3. The F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons with the statement that the applicant has been defrauded of a certain amount of money which was illegally withdrawn from a bank account.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that as per the statement recorded of the bank manager concerned, a certain amount was transferred from the account of the informant to the account of Om Veer and Malkhan Singh from where a portion of the amount was transferred to the personal bank account of the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is in fact rendering service to the Yes Bank as a customer care service pointsman being a business associate of ROI NET Solution Private Limited for effecting digital financial transactions as per R.B.I. guidelines. It is submitted that it is in course of his duties as a service provider to provide the amount credited to his account to the village persons upon presentation of U.P.I. I.D. It i submitted that it was in course of his duties that the aforesaid amount was transferred by the said Om Veer Singh into account for purposes of disbursement to third persons upon presentation of U.P.I. I.D. Learned cousnel has further submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 6th March, 2022 and even otherwise the offences are triable by Magistrate having maximum punishment of seven years. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed bail application with the submission that from the statement of the bank manager recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the applicant was the ultimate beneficiary of a portion of the amount illegally transferred from the account of the informant. However they do not have any instructions with regard to nature of duties required to be provided by the applicant as a service provider to the Yes Bank. It is also admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced and upon perusal of material on record, while it is evident that a portion of the amount said to be illegally transferred from the account of informant has ended up in the private bank account of the applicant, the authorization of Yes Bank in favour of the applicant appointing him as a service provider to the said bank is also on record which prima face, subject to evidence being led at trial, indicates that the applicant was providing banking services to the said bank relating to the domestic money transfer and as a Mini A.T.M. It is submission of learned counsel for applicant that it is in course of his duties that the aforesaid amount was transferred in his account. It is also admitted between the parties that the matter is triable by Magistrate having maximum punishment of seven years.
7. Learned cousnel for applicant upon instructions submits an undertaking that at least half of the amount transferred in his account would be paid to the informant within a period of three weeks from today. The voluntary undertaking of the applicant finds favour with the learned cousnel for complainant also.
8. 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."
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 Anoop Yadav 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 :- 31.8.2022
Prabhat
