Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10979 of 2018 Applicant :- Vinod Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
Prosecution story is that the complainant lodged the first information report dated 22.08.2017 against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant had taken money from him for providing service on the post of teacher and promised to give salary but neither salary has been given nor his money return by the applicant. It is further alleged that a huge amount of money has been misappropriated by the applicant and co-accused fraudulently and dishonestly by committing fraud and forgery.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that Ratnakar @ Kaunakar Upaddhyay, who is the manager of Manyawar Kashiram Education Trust, Hazarat Ganj, Lucknow and Madhuri Devi are real culprits of this case, by whom the applicant has also been cheated. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.10.2017. It is further submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedents.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the money has been misappropriated by the applicant fraudulently and dishonestly by committing fraud and forgery and, therefore, he is not entitled for indulgence, and incase the applicant is released on bail, the amount in question be secured by this Court.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the undertaking given by the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant should be granted bail.
Let the applicant Vinod Pandey involved in Case Crime No. 771 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit 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 and also subject to prior deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt or as the case may be, in the court concerned (payable in court's name), to be invested in a nationalized bank and ultimately paid to the person concerned occasioned to wrongful loss on the satisfaction of court concerned within a period of one month from the date of his release.
It is made clear that furnishing of aforesaid security by the applicant will not, in any way, prejudice the right/defence of the applicant during the trial of the case.
In case the applicant is acquitted in the present criminal case by the court of law, aforesaid security, if furnished by the applicant, shall be discharged in his favour.
(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. 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.
(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.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions or in case of default in deposition of amount as directed herein above, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail granted herein above and the applicant will be taken into custody immediately.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Arti