Court No. - 36
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11263 of 2021 Applicant :- Shailendra Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Neeraj Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The applicant is seeking bail in connection with Case Crime No. 365 of 2020, under Section 420, 406, 120-B, 506 IPC, P.S.
Hariparwat, District Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature. An efficacious remedy is available to the informant in RERA tribunal. The informant may also resort to conciliation and arbitration as per agreement to sale. In short the prosecution case is to the effect that the applicant is builder of Maa Mansadevi Sahkari Awas Samiti. It appears from the record that the informant booked one flat by his name and he has paid Rs. 6,75,000/-. For booking, the informant has taken a loan from the bank but the applicant is neither giving the possession of the aforesaid flat nor returning his money. 34 cases have been registered against the applicant with regard to the similar dispute arising out of residential projects. In all matters, he has been enlarged on bail by this Court, detail of which has been given in paragraph 18 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. The relief sought by the informant is payment of his dues or gaining possession over the flat in question, which would not be possible by means of present prosecution. The applicant is in jail since 20.11.2017.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants undertake that he will not only clear the dues of the bank but shall also pay back the remaining earnest money to the informant immediately within a period of six months from the date of his release from the jail and shall also provide details of the adjustment, if any amount has already been paid to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant does not have any objection in case the entire amount is paid back to him.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail but could not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that appropriate orders may be passed on the basis of undertaking being advanced by the applicant before this Court.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Shailendra Agarwal S/o Late Sri Om Prakash be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned provided that the applicant honours his own undertaking quoted hereinabove as advanced by his learned counsel within a period of six months from the date of his release from jail and in the event he fails to honour his undertaking so advanced before this Court by his counsel, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand automatically cancelled and he shall be liable to surrender and be taken into custody forthwith.
It is further provided that this bail order available on the official website of the High Court will be taken to be the authentic one and certified copy shall be submitted before the court concerned as soon as it is issued.
It is further directed that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the police/ investigating agency/ trial as the case may be.
Order Date :- 7.4.2021 A.K.Srivastava