1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in FIR No.1053 of 2019 under Section 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow against one Gyanendra Singh, C.M.D., Sarva Smradhi Land Developers Infra structures India Private Limited.
During the course of investigation, provisions of Section 409 IPC has been invoked. The accused -applicant has been arrested on 31.10.2019.
3. Allegations in the FIR are against Gyanendra Singh who was paid Rs.10,00,000/- by the complainant for giving a plot of land of 2000 sqr fts. The complainant has specifically said that it was Gyanendra Singh who promised that if the land was not given within two years, Rs.20,00,000/- would be returned to the complainant. No role has been assigned to the accused-applicant in the FIR. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that considering the allegations in the FIR and the fact that the FIR was registered only against Gyanendra Singh, the accused-applicant is being implicated for malafide reasons so as to realise money of the complainant which was given to Gyanendra Singh.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. submits that name of the accused-applicant has come during the course of investigation. Gyanendra Singh and the accused-applicant are in hands in glove. They share same office. He, therefore, submits that the accused-applicant is fully involved in the commission of the offence and should not be enlarged on bail.
5. I have considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A.
6. Gyanendra Singh, the main accused has not yet been arrested. Investigation is under progress. Considering the fact that there is no allegation against the accused-applicant in the FIR and the allegation is only against Gyanendra Singh, it would be appropriate without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail who is in jail since 31.10.2019.
5. Let applicant, Ritesh Chandra Mishra @ Sonu Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-
(i) The applicant(s) 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(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her 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(s) 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(s) 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(s) 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(s) 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 :- 29.11.2019 prateek