Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23058 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sector-20, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
While considering the previous bail application, this Court had passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
An F.I.R. bearing no. 210 dated 10 February 2018 was lodged under Section 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. in P.S. Noida Sector 20, District Gautam Budh Nagar by the Branch Manager, Panjab National Bank, Sector-1 NOIDA levelling allegation that on 8 February 2018 a cheque dated 1 February 2018 bearing no. 274158 for a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- from the account of Agrawal Enterprises maintained at Belanganj Branch, Agra was presented for transfer to the account of Sanjeev Kumar Pandey (the applicant) in his account. The amount of cheque was transferred to the account of the applicant. When the SMS of debit went to Agrawal Enterprises, they reported that the cheque had not been issued by them. The Bank immediately locked the account of the applicant. After sometime the applicant came with a cheque seeking payment of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On being queried, the applicant could not furnish any satisfactory reply and it was found that a fraud had been committed by the applicant.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is labourer and has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 8 February 2018.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has stated that charge sheet has been filed on 1 April 2018.
Given the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail in this matter. The matter pertains to fraud committed by the applicant with regard to a public sector bank.
Thus, the bail application is, accordingly, rejected".
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that despite passage of more than one and half years, the trial of the case has not been completed as is mandate of sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the delay in trial should not work to disadvantage of the applicant for continuing his incarceration. It is contended that the applicant is in jail since 10.2.2018. Learned counsel has relied upon an order of this Court dated 8.7.2015, passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14984 of 2015. (Kalka Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) to contend that it is a fit case for bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. contends that the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C are not mandatory in nature. It is contended that the court can refuse bail under the facts and circumstances of the case.
However, keeping in view the nature of the offence and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Sanjeev Kumar Pandey involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on 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. shall be issued and if 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 :- 17.12.2019 sfa/