Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This Court on 11.12.2019 passed the following order:
"Vakalatnama filed today in Court by Mr. Hemant Kumar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Siddharth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Hemant Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the complainant, and perused the record. Learned A.G.A. has put in appearance for the State. Also perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is one of the Directors in Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant had purchased a villa from Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and a plot from Smt. Richa Agawal. However, when he went to the office of Ansal Properties for gaining transfer and possession of the aforesaid villa and plot, the company declined to do so.
The complainant Karuna Sindhu has also appeared before the Court in person, who has been verified by his counsel. Mr. Sindhu submits that he does not want any further action against the applicant in this matter.He also submits that his grievance has been settled and both the properties (supra) have been handed over to him which he has sold to other party. The affidavit of the complainant, in this context, filed before the trial Court, is on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the same crime case, the co-accused Arun Kumar Mishra has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 8.7.2019 passed in Bail No.6508 of 2019. Another co-accused Harish Gulla has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.7.2019 rendered in Bail No.6618 of 2019 titled "Harish Gulla versus State of U.P.". Charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed and the custody of the applicant is not wanted for any other purpose.
At this stage, learned A.G.A. prays that the matter be taken up tomorrow. On such request, let the case be listed/put up on 12.12.2019. The complainant need not require to appear on the next date. "
Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Sri V.K. Sahi, learned Additional Advocate General submits that as long as builders are working bonafidely and the grievances of the informant are settled then State has no objection in granting bail to such builders.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, applicant and the complainant have settled the dispute and property were handed over to the complainant by the company, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, the fact that co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, also chargesheet has been filed, the matter is triable by Magistrate, applicant is in jail since 04.10.2019 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Pranav Ansal involved in F.I.R./Crime No. 81/2019, under Sections 406/420 IPC, Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Shubhankar