Allahabad High Court
Satinder Singh Bhasin vs State Of U.P. on 11 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 52 1. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11654 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 2. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11655 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 3. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11820 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 4. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12101 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 5. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12180 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 6. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -12455 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 7. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -12460 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 8. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -12473 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 9. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -12555 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. WITH 10.Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.-13301 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 11.Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -18142 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 12.Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.-21090 of 2021 Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Since all the aforementioned bail applications have been filed on behalf of the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin and arise out of similar nature of cases, they have been heard together and are being decided of by a common order.
For the sake of convenience, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11654 of 2021 is being treated as leading case.
Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Pushkar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State through video conferencing in all the matters.
Sri Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has not committed the present offence. There is no direct evidence to connect him with the present matter. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant to support the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.s. It was next contended that on the basis of similar evidence and same set of facts and evidence, applicant has been allowed on bail through criminal misc. bail applications no.4012 of 2021 and 8209 of 2021. It was further argued that applicant was also not named in the F.I.R.s He is not the office bearer, director, managing director or share holder in the Company namely, M/s. Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (In short "G.I.P.L.") or its sister concern. At no point of time applicant induced the investors to invest the money in Bike Boat Scheme. Applicant has also not propagated the scheme to invest the money in it. There was absolutely no evidence against the applicant before his arrest. All the evidence collected against the applicant were collected at belated stage and are concocted. Referring to the contents of the F.I.R.s and the allegations levelled therein, it was also contended that applicant is totally unconnected with these matters. Whatever amount was invested in the applicant's company was invested by G.I.P.L. and its sister concern to purchase the flats / plots. Referring to the investigation made by the Enforcement Directorate, it is also argued that the properties which have been purchased by G.I.P.L. or its sister concern have been identified by the Enforcement Directorate and have been attached. At this stage, referring to the investigation made by the Enforcement Directorate, which is annexed with the counter affidavit, it is further argued that if the prosecution case is taken into consideration, then also only Rs.61 Crores were invested by G.I.P.L. and its sister concern in Bhasin Infotech & Infrustructure Private Limited and Vinaamr Infrastructure Private Limited for purchase of flats. Since proceedings under P.M.L.A. in the present matter is going on independently, applicant cannot be prosecuted in the present matter on the basis of evidence collected by the Enforcement Directorate in P.M.L.A. matters. Whatever money have been invested in the applicant's company is secured and identified. There is documentary evidence to support the investment made in the applicant's company by G.I.P.L. and its sister concern and same are not manipulated and manufactured after obtaining bail from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar matters. Referring to the documents annexed with the application as well as counter affidavit, it is further argued that on the basis of agreement entered into between the parties on different occasion, money was invested for the allotment of land and same was allotted to G.I.P.L. and its sister concern. Excess amount paid to the applicant's company has also been returned and it has wrongly been shown in total amount by the investigating agency. Thus, referring to paragraphs no.30, 31, 32 & 33 of the counter affidavit and bail orders passed in respect of other F.I.R.s lodged against the applicant, as disclosed herein above, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for bail.
Per contra, Sri Manish Goyal , learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State argued that number of criminal cases are pending against the applicant. It is a case of huge financial scam. Application said to have been moved by G.I.P.L. and its sister concern for allotment of land and the allotment letter both are manufactured and were prepared after obtaining bail from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in other cases only to save the skin from the consequences of the present matters. Applicant was also avoiding to appear before the Enforcement Directorate. To substantiate this argument, Sri Goyal referred to the investigation report made by the Enforcement Directorate annexed with the counter affidavit and further argued that it is not a case as applicant is representing, rather applicant was doing partnership business with G.I.P.L. and its sister concern, as is clear from the conclusion drawn by the Enforcement Directorate in the investigation. Referring to paragraphs no.25, 26 & 27 of the counter affidavit, it is further argued that co-accused Sachin Bhati has himself denied that no such application for allotment was moved on his part nor any allotment letter was issued on part of the applicant. Sri Goyal also referred to the audit report and further contended that to support the investment said to have been made on part of G.I.P.L. and its sister concern with the applicant's company, no documentary evidence was produced before the Audit Committee. This fact itself shows that stand taken by the applicant to justify this plea is false. Documents were produced before the investigating officer after a gap of about five months. Applicant has fully participated in commission of the present crime. Sri Goyal also referred to the conclusion of the Enforcement Directorate in the investigation made by it and annexed with the counter affidavit and further argued that a clear finding has arrived at by the investigating officer of the Enforcement Directorate that amount said to have been invested in the applicant's company and the property said to have been allotted to G.I.P.L. and its sister concern were the proceeds of crime. He also referred to annexure no.6 to the counter affidavit and further submitted that this document itself shows that at the time of audit, there was no documentary evidence to support the applicant's plea. Apprehension was shown on part of the State that if the applicant is released on bail, he will again commit such type of economic offence and there is chance that he will leave the country. More than 2.5 lacs investors have invested their hard earned money in Bike Boat Scheme, which have been diverted to the applicant's company with the intent to defraud the investors who are still awaiting for their assured return / profit. Sri Goyal further referred to annexure no.CA-1 and argued that application moved for allotment was a manipulated document and many columns in the said document are blank. This fact itself demonstrates that it was prepared with an afterthought and ulterior motive. Mere attachment made by the Enforcement Directorate of the disputed land is not sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail. Referring to the observation recorded by this Court in criminal misc. bail applications no.4012 of 2021 and 8209 of 2021, it is further argued that applicant cannot be allowed on bail on the ground of parity, as in these matters, business said to have been done by the applicant's company was not real business, but it was shell company and sham transactions were being made. It is next contended that transactions took place between both the companies were not a verified transaction. Modus operandi adopted by the G.I.P.L. and its sister concern as well as applicant's company clearly reveals that in an organized manner present offence was committed conspiring with each other. Lastly, it was also submitted that it is not clear whether attachment order has attained finality or not. If it has not attained finality, there is a chance that applicant, after his release in these matters, will dispose of the same and will destroy the evidence. Ultimately, the innocent investors will suffer a lot. It is further submitted that it is a serious fraud offence case, therefore applicant may not be allowed on bail.
I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
Before going through the submissions raised across the Bar, I find it necessary to quote the order dated 4.3.2021 passed by this Court in criminal misc. bail applications no.4012 of 2021 and 8209 of 2021.
"Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Pushkar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The aforesaid bail applications have been filed by accused applicant namely Satinder Singh Bhasin in following case crime nos. and have been heard together, thus, same are being decided by a common order. The details of the bail applications are given below :
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4012 of 2021 in case crime no. 385 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8209 of 2021 in case crime no. 353 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is not named in the first information report. He was not the Director of the Company concerned and is not related in any way with M/s. Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (in short "G.I.P.L."). Applicant never motivated any person to invest money in the Bike Boat Scheme. Motor cycle said to have been recovered in the matter could also not be connected with the applicant. F.I.R. is said to be lodged on 09.03.2019, applicant was arrested in this matter on 15.02.2020. Nothing was mentioned in the FIR to attract the offences levelled in the matter against the applicant. Applicant is one of the Director of Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Private Limited which is sister concern of Vinaamr Infrastructure Private Limited. Both the companies are duly incorporated companies under the Companies Act. One scheme had been launched by the aforesaid companies in the name of Grand Venezia Shopping Mall and Commercial Tower and for which a separate company was incorporated in the name of Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited, a duly registered company. Since G.I.P.L. and Independent T. V. Limited had applied for allotment of the land (commercial space) in the aforesaid scheme, the same was accepted and allotment was made in favour of the aforesaid companies after receiving the consideration amount from them as both the companies M/s. G.I.P.L. and Independent T. V. Limited had accepted the terms and conditions enumerated in the lease deed. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant at this juncture referred to para 33, 34 and 35 of the bail application moved in Crime No. 353 of 2019 and further argued that payment made by the companies concerned regarding the allotment were bank transactions. No advance amount was taken by the applicant. It is a no evidence case against the applicant as applicant is not connected with the Bike Boat Scheme launched by M/s. G.I.P.L. If entire prosecution case is taken into consideration then also applicant allotted the commercial office space in Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited to the G.I.P.L. and its sister concern as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed and same cannot be treated that the applicant was also involved in the money laundering done by M/s. G.I.P.L. and its sister concern. None of the ingredients of the offences levelled in the matter are attracted against the applicant. Amount shown to be credited in the account of the applicant by the investigating agency is also false and is based on wrong calculation. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant referred to the counter and rejoinder affidavits annexed with the application and further argued that Investigating Officer has taken into consideration those amount which was returned to M/s. G.I.P.L. M/s. G.I.P.L. has taken the possession of said commercial space and has plans to launch office therein. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the facts of the present case as well as ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 and 409 IPC and further argued that there is no cheating on the part of the applicant with the investors of the G.I.P.L. Applicant is totally unconnected with this matter. Referring to the entire documents annexed with the application it is also argued that there are two aspect of the present matter. First with regard to the investment made by the investors in Bike Boat Scheme launched by the G.I.P.L. and second, money said to have been paid by the G.I.P.L. to the informant's company. It is further argued that there is no evidence against the applicant to show that the applicant was involved in motivating the investors to invest the money in the Bike Boat Scheme. All the evidence collected during investigation to this extent were collected after due consultation and after thought to falsely implicate the applicant in the present matter. Referring to the facts of the present matter it is also argued that if entire prosecution case is taken into consideration then also applicant cannot be prosecuted in the present matter for the amount credited by M/s. G.I.P.L. in the account of schemes launched by the applicant company. Referring to the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer it is further argued that they are pocket witnesses and were procured through investigation to connect the applicant with the present matter. Arrest of the applicant is illegal. Company to which applicant belongs has not been made accused, therefore, on this ground also the present prosecution cannot continue against the applicant. Applicant has co-operated with the investigating agency during investigation. Thus, there was no occasion to arrest the applicant in the present matter as it is a no evidence case. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts as well as documents annexed with the application, counter and rejoinder affidavits, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws :
1. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
2. Data Ram Singh Vs. State of U. P. and another, (2108) 3 SCC 22.
3. Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40.
4. Sushil Sethi and another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, (2020) 3 SCC 240.
5. P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2019 SC 5272.
It is further argued that statement made by of the co-accused in the matter cannot be read against the present applicant as same is barred by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also argued that investors belonging to the scheme launched by the applicant company had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applicant was enlarged on bail in all the FIRs lodged agianst him with certain directions. Present matter is also of the same nature and the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in this matter also.
Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General argued that amount said to have been paid by M/s. G.I.P.L. to the applicant's company/scheme was paid in the month of April, 2018 itself. Prayer for allotment was made through the application moved in the month of December, 2018. Thus, it clearly shows that amount deposited by the investors in Bike Boat Scheme was diverted to the applicant's companies prior to the moving of the application for allotment of the land. Referring to the application moved on behalf of M/s. G.I.P.L. for allotment of the land it was further argued that person who had applied for allotment has not signed the application nor any stamp was affixed thereon. It was further argued that two contradictory views have been taken by the applicant. Criminal Writ filed by the applicant is also pending before the Court in which applicant has annexed the statement of the accused Sanjay Bhati in which he has admitted that M/s. G.I.P.L. has invested Rs. 150 crores in the applicant's company. Thus, there is ample material on record which shows that the present applicant is not entitled for bail. It was next contended that there is no necessity to array the company as an accused as act said to have been committed by the applicant was done to defraud the investors of Bike Boat Scheme. There is sufficient incriminating material against the applicant in the case diary itself. Witnesses interrogated by the Investigating Officer have supported the prosecution case. Referring to the details of the accounts maintained by the applicant company and M/s. G.I.P.L. annexed with the application it was further argued that huge amount belonging to the investors of Bike Boat Scheme has been diverted in the companies of the applicant. There is no written agreement between the two companies to invest the amount in the company of the applicant. Thus, this fact reveal that transactions were only for defrauding the investors of the Bike Boat Scheme.
It was further argued that bail granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter initiated by the investors of the scheme launched by the applicant's company will not be a ground to release the applicant in the present matter as facts of the present matter are entirely different from the facts of the FIR challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since huge amount of the investors has been diverted by M/s. G.I.P.L. in the scheme of the applicant, therefore, involvement of the applicant in the present matter is clear and apparent from the evidence and a prima facie case is made out against him. More than 2.5 lakhs investors who invested around 3500 crores are waiting for return of their money invested in the Bike Boat Scheme.
Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following case laws :
1. Masroor Vesus State of U.P. and Another, (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 286.
2. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Versus Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496.
3. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439.
4. Gautam Kundu Versus Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India, (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 1
5. State of Bihar and Another Versus Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 751.
6. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Versus Nittin Johari and Another, (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 165.
7. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 528.
8. Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 389.
9. Judgment dated 5.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8606 of 2020 (Deepti Bahal Versus State of U.P.).
10. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another, (1996) 4 SCC 622.
11. State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha and others, (2017) 6 SCC 263.
12. Ramesh Chandra Nand Lal Parikh Vs. State of Gujrat and another, (2006) 1 SCC 732.
13. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and others Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another, (2013) 1 SCC 1.
I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record including the papers submitted by the learned counsel for the parties.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He is not the Director, signatory or shareholder in M/s. G.I.P.L. Although allegation against the applicant is that investors' amount of the Bike Boat Scheme launched by M/s. G.I.P.L. was diverted to the applicant's company and application said to have been moved by the applicant's company does not bear the signature of the person moving it and said person had resigned from the post of Director prior to the date of moving the application yet commercial space has been allotted in the scheme launched by the applicant in favour of M/s. G.I.P.L. and its sister concern and possession over the commercial space has also been taken. The said allotted land is reported to be attached by the Enforcement Directorate in the proceedings started against main accused but accounts of the applicant's company have not been attached. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, role assigned to the applicant to connect him with the present matter, comparing the same with the ingredients of the offences levelled against him in the FIRs in the present matters and also taking into consideration the settled principles of law for granting bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail applications are allowed.
Let the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin involved in Case Crime No. 385 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4012 of 2021 and the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin @ Montu involved in Case Crime No. 353 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8209 of 2021 be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties in each cases in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
6. The applicant shall deposit his passport with the trial court within two weeks from the date of his release from prison and if he has no passport, he shall swear to it on affidavit within the same period and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
04.03.2021."
In this matter, what transpires from the submissions raised across the Bar as well as documents annexed with the applications and counter affidavits that applicant is neither the Director, Office Bearer, Manager or Shareholder nor Signatory in G.I.P.L. and its sister concern. Nothing is on record to show that at any point of time applicant or his company has actively participated in inducing the investors to invest their money in Bike Boat Scheme. Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the applicant in some other F.I.R.s lodged against him. The property said to be the proceeds of crime has been attached by the Enforcement Directorate in independent investigation. Applicant in an identical situation, in different F.I.R.s, has been allowed on bail vide criminal misc. bail applications no.4012 of 2021 and 8209 of 2021.
Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, role assigned to the applicant to connect him with the present offence and comparing the same with the submissions raised across the Bar and also taking into consideration the settled principles of law for granting bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that applicant is entitled to be released on bail in all the aforesaid bail applications.
The bail applications are allowed.
Let the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin involved in Case Crime No. 586 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11654 of 2021, Case Crime No. 809 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11655 of 2021, Case Crime No. 440 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11820 of 2021, Case Crime No. 866 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12101 of 2021, Case Crime No. 389 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12180 of 2021, Case Crime No. 361 of 2018 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12455 of 2021, Case Crime No. 368 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12460 of 2021, Case Crime No. 369 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12473 of 2021, Case Crime No. 510 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12555 of 2021, Case Crime No. 386 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13301 of 2021, Case Crime No. 697 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18142 of 2021 and Case Crime No. 592 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21090 of 2021, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties in each cases in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
6. The applicant shall deposit his passport with the trial court within two weeks from the date of his release and if he has no passport, he shall swear to it on affidavit within the same period and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court / Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 11.6.2021 ss