Allahabad High Court
Moh. Ajamutulla Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 8 January, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1267 Court No. - 8 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13362 of 2024 Applicant :- Moh. Ajamutulla Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeta Singh Chandel,Deependra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.205 of 2022, under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Tikoniya, District-Lakhimpur Kheri during trial.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
The applicant is said to be an Additional Director in the Company namely M/s Venketshawar Global Trading Pvt ltd, which was dealing with exports of sugar. The applicant is said to have been inducted as an Additional Director on 20.03.2017.
As per the averments made in the FIR, it is stated that Company namely Sri Venkateshwar Global Trading Pvt ltd had entered in a contract with the Sugar Mill to lift on agreed quantity of sugar at subsidized rates to be exported for the year 2017-18 and 2019-20.
It is also averred that the said Company had lifted the quantity of the sugar from the Sugar Mills but instead of exporting the said sugar, it is alleged that the Company sold the said sugar in the domestic market and in this context, the Company had duped the sugar mills, in as much as, they lifted the sugar at a much lower rates and sold in the domestic market for a higher rate whereas the said quantity was only to be exported and not for consumption or sale in the domestic market.
The difference in the price, for which, the Company was given the sugar was subsidized and the subsidy was to be reimbursed by the Government, only upon submitting the requisite documents relating to export. Since, the said documents of export were not submitted by the Company to the sugar mills which in turn could not be submitted before the Government, hence, it was the sugar mills who suffered losses worth several lakhs whereas the Company and its Director made a tidy profit. It is in this context that the FIR was lodged.
Further submission is that even if the aforesaid averments are taken at the face value, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant in any manner was instrumental in getting the contract signed or any money which is alleged to have been made as profits from the said transactions came in the hands of the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is 70 years old man, who had retired from the railway service and was inducted as an Additional Director only in the month of March, 2017 and as per the material which was unearthed during investigation, it revealed that primarily the person responsible was one Morimisetty Pandu, the co-accused.
It is further urged that the said co-accused Morimisetty Pandu against whom several FIRs were lodged, his bail applications have been allowed vide order dated 04.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9592 of 2024 after an order passed by the Apex Court and the said orders have been placed on record as Annexure nos.3 and 4 respectively.
It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history except in context of the FIRs which have been lodged in respect of the acts which were the handiwork ofMorimisetty Pandu. In such circumstances, the applicant has been in jail since 18.03.2024 and there is no incriminating evidence against the present applicant except that he was an Additional Director of the Company, accordingly, the bail application be allowed.
Sri Vishwas Saraswat, learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, he could not dispute the fact that during the entire investigation, nothing incriminating has been found against the present applicant and all the material which has been collected during investigation is primarily against Morimisetty Pandu. It also could not be disputed that Morimisetty Pandu has been enlarged on bail and it has also not been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk or is in a position to influence any witness or tamper with any evidence.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances including the fact that apart from the designation of the petitioner as an Additional Director, nothing has been pointed out which indicates the complicity of the applicant, accordingly, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Mohd. Ajamutulla Khan involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be 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) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 8.1.2025/Harshita