Allahabad High Court
Tarun Kumar Dudeja @ Tarun Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19760
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1829 of 2025
Applicant :- Tarun Kumar Dudeja @ Tarun Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Verma,Brahmendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State whose counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 269 of 2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.
3. As per contents of First Information Report, applicant has allegedly defrauded the informant of about Rs. 15,00,000/- on the pretext of providing ATM machine and AEPS payment system without actually providing the same.
4. It is a Director of the Company but has been falsely implicated in the case on hand. It is submitted that a perusal of FIR will indicate that only general allegations have been levelled against all the directors and employees of the company without any specific allegation against any person. It is submitted that the FIR does not indicate any specific aspect pertaining to applicant having deceived the informant. It is submitted that other directors were co-accused such as Shantanu Anand and Puneet Kumar Pandey have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Application Nos. 11747 of 2024 and 12449 of 2024. Learned counsel has claimed parity with the same. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 24.12.2024 and his previous criminal history of four cases has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of application. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 406 and 420 both which is against the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. versus State of U.P. & others reported in AIR OnLine 2024 SC 612.
5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that it is only after collection of evidence that charge-sheet has been filed against applicant. It is, however, admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has already been explained and that co-accused have already been enlarged in bail.
6. 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."
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that general allegations have been levelled in the FIR against all the accused including directors and employees. The charge-sheet also indicates it having been filed under Sections 406 and 420 IPC simultaneously which appears to be contrary the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. (supra). Co-accused Shantanu Anand and Puneet Kumar Pandey have already been enlarged on bail as indicated hereinabove.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Tarun Kumar Dudeja @ Tarun Kumar, 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 :- 8.4.2025
Satish
