Allahabad High Court
Vishnukant Tripathi vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54177 of 2022
Applicant :- Vishnukant Tripathi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Vishnukant Tripathi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.47 of 2018, under Sections 408, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.
It is alleged in the FIR that accused person being owner of the Company and Director, advised informant to invest money and would get double amount within six years but after taking money, they did not return the money. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is Director of the Company but he submitted resignation in the year 2013 and 2014 and as per as Section 168(2) of the Company's Act, the resignation of a Director shall take effect from the date on which the notice is received by the company or the date, if any, is specified by the Director in the notice, whichever is later. He has further placed reliance upon the statement of informant that company had paid to investors till 2016 but after that they have not made any payment. It is submitted that as per as Hon'ble Apex Court judgment laid down in Sushil Sethi and another vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others; (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 240, while registering FIR against company, the company should be party and it is also clear from the content of the FIR that there is no specific allegation against the applicant. Applicant is an old person. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and has stated that applicant is Director of the Company and on false promise, investors investing money and after collecting huge amount, they did not return the money.
Considering the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant, it is evident that the applicant is Director of the Company and he has made resignation in the year 2013 and 2014 from the company and in view of the Apex Court judgment, company has not made party and the investors had invested money in the company. Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Vishnukant Tripathi, who is 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. 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.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
SKD
