Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9821 of 2018 Applicant :- Sumit Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Ranjan Mishra
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Anand Mohan Pandey counsel for the applicant and Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant is the salesman of the company "Biomass Research Technical Solution Pvt. Ltd" which manufactures food supplements for animal feed. It supplies its products in the country. The applicant is performing the job of salesman of the company since 20.11.2014. The informant, who is director of the company, received complaints from some customers of after states that the food supplements are not being sent to them when they have made payments of the supplement to the applicant. The applicant has informed them that there is a sister concern of the company in the name of "Biomass Research and Technical Solution" and cheques were taken by him in this name. The informant has found that the applicant has opened account in the name of "Biomass Research and Technical Solution" which is similar to the name of the company of the informant and has deposited the cheques taken in the name of his company in the aforesaid firm. Number of customers have been duped by the applicant and therefore the report was lodged against him. He has entered into agreement with the informant and given cheques for loss caused which have also been dishonoured.
It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, the property which are in the name of applicant and his firm belong to him and his family members and the allegation has been made falsely implicating the applicant of misusing the money received on behalf of his employer.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the informant has submitted that it is clear case of cheating and fraud committed by the applicant, was clearly an employee of the company aforesaid and he has realised the money from the customers who received goods of the company and he has deposited the money in the account opened in the name of his own partnership firm. The name of the company of the employer and the partnership firm are almost identical and the applicant has opened the firm only to cheat his employer company and the entire assets of the applicant and his family are the result of the money realised by him from the customers of his employers. It has been further submitted that only the trial pending before the trial court be directed to be expedited and the applicant does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has large number of cases registered against him and even if he is enlarged on bail no useful purposes would be served. He will not able to get bail in other cases in near future which are about 29 in numbers.
After hearing the rival submissions it is clear that the offence against the applicant appears to be made out from the allegations on record. However keeping in view the fact that the applicant is in jail since 11.06.2015 and in view of the mandate of the Section 436-A Cr.P.C. about half of the sentence which may be awarded to him has been carried out. Consideration of this application for bail is imperative. The anxiety of the counsel for the informant is that in case the applicant is released on bail he will not permit the trial to conclude and will delay the conclusion of trial. Large amount of money belonging to the employer company is involved in this case and therefore the cause of justice would suffer.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail on similar cases.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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, Sumit Awasthi, involved in Case Crime No. 534 of 2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 408 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
6. The applicant shall not alienate any assets in the name of his two firms, in his personal land in the name of immediate family member without leave of the court.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court. The trial court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year, without granting any undue adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 20.9.2018 Rohit