Allahabad High Court
Nitin Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 30 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33297
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4612 of 2025
Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Srivastava
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.
2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0864 of 2019 under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow.
3. Earlier F.I.R. had been lodged under Section 406, 420 I.P.C. in which the applicant was already enlarged on Bail by this Court in Bail Application No.2880 of 2023. Subsequently with regard to same allegations, Section 409 I.P.C. has been imputed against applicant.
4. As per the averments contained in the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that the Company floated by the applicant and other co-accused invited deposits and after receiving money certain FD certificates were issued. Despite the amount deposited against which FD certificate were issued but at the time of redemption of the said amount, the Company and its officials including the applicant and other co-accused defaulted in payment and defrauded the complainant and other investors.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is primarily a civil dispute where the applicant being a bona fide Director of the Company and floated certain schemes, which did not materialize. However, there was no intent of the applicant to defraud the investors. Due to uncertain investment climate, the schemes of the Company did not do well, which created a cash crunch, which resulted in failure of the Company to honour its commitment. It is also urged that no money was paid to the applicant directly rather it was all deposited in the funds of the Company, which was managed not only by the applicant but even by other Directors. It is further urged that in the instant case, the charge sheet has already been filed and another Director of Company, namely, Aniruddh Prasad Tiwari has been enlarged on bail passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8874 of 2023 vide order dated 08.04.2024. It is further urged that the similar allegations have been levelled against the applicant in other States, wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail. The applicant has been in jail since 25.09.2021 and the applicant is not in a position to influence any witness or tamper with the evidence and having spent more than three and half years in jail the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application. However, he could not dispute the fact that the allegations against the applicant are primarily in respect of investment made by the complainant in the Company, which is a civil dispute. It is also not disputed that the matter as to whether the schemes were floated by the applicant to defraud its investors or it was a bad business decision is to be seen during trial. It is also not disputed that charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is not a flight risk.
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. Considering the rival submissions and material available on record, it could not be disputed by learned AGA that even though the applicant was the Managing Director of the Companies, but there is no clear indication as to whether the applicant deliberately floated the Companies for duping its investors or it was a bad business decision, which led to dishonouring the business commitment.
9. Once the charge sheet has been filed and the matter is yet to be decided in trial and the applicant has been in jail since 25.09.2021 and insofar as the bail applications moved by the applicant in other States are concerned, he has been enlarged on bail and the history as pointed out by learned AGA relates to similar allegations against the applicant in separate matters relating to the Companies and investments made therein by the investors, they are primarily contractual matter and it is not the case of learned AGA that the applicant is a flight risk or he is in a position to influence any witness or tamper with the evidence, and co-accused Aniruddh Prasad Tiwari has already been granted bail. Hence, taking an overall view, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
11. Let applicant Nitin Kumar Srivastava, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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/she 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/her 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/her 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/her, 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/her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025
kvg/-
