Allahabad High Court
Nitu Tripathi vs State Of U.P. on 22 October, 2020
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved On:- 20.10.2020 Delivered On:- 22.10.2020 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33039 of 2020 Applicant :- Nitu Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey,Praveen Kumar Singh Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Tiwary; learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Deepak Dubey and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The allegation in the FIR is that Ravindra Kumar Maurya is the Director of the company, Vaishali Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., involved in the business of property and it was established in 2006. Initially, Ravindra Kumar Maurya and Ajay Rai, were Directors of the company. After sometime Ajay Rai resigned and he was replaced by Smt. Pratima Verma, wife of Ravindra Kumar Maurya, as Director. In 2013 one, Kanu Bhai Patel, also became Director of the company and in 2016 the applicant joined as fourth Director of the company. It is alleged that Ravindra Kumar Maurya without discussion with other Directors prepared forged documents and ousted his wife from the Directorship. Ravindra Kumar Maurya and applicant have opened a separate account of the company in State Bank of India and transferred the profits of the company to the aforesaid account and misappropriated the same. It has further been alleged that the applicant in collusion with other Directors lodged an FIR dated 20.09.2018 against the informant, being Case Crime No. 985 of 2018 and the informant was subsequently exonerated by the Investigating Officer. There are number of cases lodged against the applicant and other accused persons against each other in different police station.
3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of lodging of FIR dated 20.09.2018 against Kripa Shanker Rai, informant in the present case. He has further submitted that the informant managed to get a final report submitted in aforesaid case. The allegation that in the year 2016 Smt. Pratima Verma was ousted from the firm and the applicant was made Director is false. Smt. Pratima Verma resigned from the post of Director and after her resignation was duly accepted by Ravindra Kumar Maurya and due information was sent to the Registrar of Companies, Kanpur, the applicant was inducted as Director of the company. The informant has implicated the applicant and Ravindra Kumar Maurya in number of FIR's with the help of Shri Rajesh Prasad Singh, Advocate details whereof have been given in paragraph 8 of the affidavit. At the instance of the informant, one, Amitabh Singh, has filed the company petition before National Company Law Tribunal in Allahabad, which is pending.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. He has stated the applicant and Ravindra Kumar Maurya, on the basis of forged signatures of Directors of company on the undated resolution, opened a new account with the State Bank of India, Rath Yatra, Varanasi and transferred the money of the investors in the aforesaid account. He has further pointed out to the list of Directors of the company as on 01.03.2018 wherein the applicant, Ravindra Kumar Maurya and the informant, Kripa Shanker Rai, have been shown as three Directors of the company. He has pointed out to the list of the Directors as on 06.04.2018 which includes four Directors, fourth Director being Kanu Bhai Patel. He has further pointed out to the account statement to the State Bank which was allegedly opened by the applicant and Ravindra Kumar Maurya in the name of company. He has submitted from the statement of account, it is clear that most of the withdrawls were made in cash therein. He has finally submitted that the report of the handwriting expert has certified that the signature of the informant on the letter of appointment as Director of the company does not matches with the list of Directors dated 01.03.2018. The applicant has criminal history of 10 cases. He has finally submitted that the applicant forged the resignation letter of Pratima Verma and ousted her from the post of Director.
5. After considering the rival contentions, this court finds that the dispute relates to the mismanagement of the affairs of the Pvt. Ltd. Company but the FIR has been lodged under provisions of IPC and procedure under Cr.P.C has been adopted in prosecution of applicant. The Companies Act, 2013 is a complete code which provides for the procedure of conduct investigation into the affairs of the company where allegations of fraud are made against the office bearers of the company. The allegations regarding the offences committed by the applicant should have been investigated under the provisions of companies act aforesaid.
6. However, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have a reference to the relevant provisions of the new Companies Act 2013, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
SECTION 210: Investigation into affairs of company.- (1) Where the Central Government is of the opinion, that it is necessary to investigate into the affairs of a company,--
(a) on the receipt of a report of the Registrar or inspector under section 208;
(b) on intimation of a special resolution passed by a company that the affairs of the company ought to be investigated; or (c ) in public interest, it may order an investigation into the affairs of the company.
(2) Where an order is passed by a court or the Tribunal in any proceedings before it that the affairs of a company ought to be investigated, the Central Government shall order an investigation into the affairs of that company.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the Central Government may appoint one or more persons as inspectors to investigate into the affairs of the company and to report thereon in such manner as the Central Government may direct."
Section 212: Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office.-(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 210, where the Central Government is of the opinion, that it is necessary to investigate into the affairs of a company by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office--
(a) on receipt of a report of the Registrar or inspector under section 208;
(b) on intimation of a special resolution passed by a company that its affairs are required to be investigated; ( c ) in the public interest; or
(d) on request from any Department of the Central Government or a State Government, the Central Government may, by order, assign the investigation into the affairs of the said company to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and its Director, may designate such number of inspectors, as he may consider necessary for the purpose of such investigation.
(2) Where any case has been assigned by the central government to the serious fraud investigation office for investigation under this act, no other investigating agency of central government or any state government shall proceed with investigation in such case in respect of any offence under this act and in case any such investigation has already been initiated, it shall not be proceeded further with and the concerned agency shall transfer the relevant documents and records in respect of such offences under this act to serious fraud investigation office.
(3) Where the investigation into the affairs of a company has been assigned by the Central Government to Serious Fraud Investigation Office, it shall conduct the investigation in the manner and follow the procedure provided in this Chapter; and submit its report to the Central Government within such period as may be specified in the order.
(4) The Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall cause the affairs of the company to be investigated by an Investigating Officer who shall have the power of the inspector under section 217.
(5) The company and its officers and employees, who are or have been in employment of the company shall be responsible to provide all information, explanation, documents and assistance to the Investigating Officer as he may require for conduct of the investigation.
6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974) (offences covered under section
447) of this Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of any offence under those sections shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless -
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs :
Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence referred to this sub-section except upon a complaint in writing made by --
(i) the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government authorised, by a general or special order in writing in this behalf by that Government.
(7) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (6) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.
(8) If the Director, Additional Director or Assistant Director of Serious Fraud Investigation Office authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of any offence punishable under sections referred to in sub-section (6), he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
(9) The Director, Additional Director or Assistant Director of Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall, immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section (8), forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office in a sealed envelope, in such manner as may be prescribed and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall keep such order and material for such period as may be prescribed.
(10) Every person arrested under sub-section (8) shall within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's court.
(11) The Central Government if so directs, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall submit an interim report to the Central Government.
(12) On completion of the investigation, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall submit the investigation report to the Central Government.
(13) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, a copy of the investigation report may be obtained by any person concerned by making an application in this regard to the court.
(14) On receipt of the investigation report, the Central Government may, after examination of the report (and after taking such legal advice, as it may think fit), direct the Serious Fraud Investigation Office to initiate prosecution against the company and its officers or employees, who are or have been in employment of the company or any other person directly or indirectly connected with the affairs of the company. (15) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the investigation report filed with the Special Court for framing of charges shall be deemed to be a report filed by a police officer under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(16) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any investigation or other action taken or initiated by Serious Fraud Investigation Office under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 shall continue to be proceeded with under that Act as if this Act had not been passed.
(17). (a) In case Serious Fraud Investigation Office has been investigating any offence under this Act, any other investigating agency, State Government, police authority, income-tax authorities having any information or documents in respect of such offence shall provide all such information or documents available with it to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office;
(b) The Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall share any information or documents available with it, with any investigating agency, State Government, police authority or income tax authorities, which may be relevant or useful for such investigating agency, State Government, police authority or income-tax authorities in respect of any offence or matter being investigated or examined by it under any other law."
Section 217: Procedure, powers etc., of inspectors.- (1) It shall be the duty of all officers and other employees and agents including the former officers, employees and agents of a company which is under investigation in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and where the affairs of any other body corporate or a person are investigated under section 219, of all officers and other employees and agents including former officers, employees and agents of such body corporate or a person--
(a) to preserve and to produce to an inspector or any person authorised by him in this behalf all books and papers of, or relating to, the company or, as the case may be, relating to the other body corporate or the person, which are in their custody or power; and
(b) otherwise to give to the inspector all assistance in connection with the investigation which they are reasonably able to give.
(2) The inspector may require any body corporate, other than a body corporate referred to in sub-section (1), to furnish such information to, or produce such books and papers before him or any person authorised by him in this behalf as he may consider necessary, if the furnishing of such information or the production of such books and papers is relevant or necessary for the purposes of his investigation.
(3) The inspector shall not keep in his custody any books and papers produced under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) for more than one hundred and eighty days and return the same to the company, body corporate, firm or individual by whom or on whose behalf the books and papers were produced:
Provided that the books and papers may be called for by the inspector if they are needed again for a further period of one hundred and eighty days by an order in writing.
(4) An inspector may examine on oath--
(a) any of the persons referred to in sub-section (1); and
(b) with the prior approval of the Central Government, any other person, in relation to the affairs of the company, or other body corporate or person, as the case may be, and for that purpose may require any of those persons to appear before him personally:
Provided that in case of an investigation under section 212, the prior approval of Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall be sufficient under clause (b).
(5 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract to the contrary, the inspector, being an officer of the Central Government, making an investigation under this Chapter shall have all the powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) the discovery and production of books of account and other documents, at such place and time as may be specified by such person;
(b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath; and ( c ) inspection of any books, registers and other documents of the company at any place.
6. (i) If any director or officer of the company disobeys the direction issued by the Registrar or the inspector under this section, the director or the officer shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees.
(ii) If a director or an officer of the company has been convicted of an offence under this section, the director or the officer shall, on and from the date on which he is so convicted, be deemed to have vacated his office as such and on such vacation of office, shall be disqualified from holding an office in any company. (7) The notes of any examination under sub-section (4) shall be taken down in writing and shall be read over to, or by, and signed by, the person examined, and may thereafter be used in evidence against him. (8 ) If any person fails without reasonable cause or refuses--
(a) to produce to an inspector or any person authorised by him in this behalf any book or paper which is his duty under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) to produce;
(b) to furnish any information which is his duty under sub- section (2) to furnish;
(c ) to appear before the inspector personally when required to do so under sub-section (4) or to answer any question which is put to him by the inspector in pursuance of that sub-section; or
(d) to sign the notes of any examination referred to in sub- section (7), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees, and also with a further fine which may extend to two thousand rupees for every day after the first during which the failure or refusal continues.
(9) The officers of the Central Government, State Government, police or statutory authority shall provide assistance to the inspector for the purpose of inspection, inquiry or investigation, which the inspector may, with the prior approval of the Central Government, require.
(10) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of a foreign State for reciprocal arrangements to assist in any inspection, inquiry or investigation under this Act or under the corresponding law in force in that State and may, by notification, render the application of this Chapter in relation to a foreign State with which reciprocal arrangements have been made subject to such modifications, exceptions, conditions and qualifications as may be deemed expedient for implementing the agreement with that State.
(11) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) if, in the course of an investigation into the affairs of the company, an application is made to the competent court in India by the inspector stating that evidence is, or may be, available in a country or place outside India, such court may issue a letter of request to a court or an authority in such country or place, competent to deal with such request, to examine orally, or otherwise, any person, supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, to record his statement made in the course of such examination and also to require such person or any other person to produce any document or thing, which may be in his possession pertaining to the case, and to forward all the evidence so taken or collected or the authenticated copies thereof or the things so collected to the court in India which had issued such letter of request:
Provided that the letter of request shall be transmitted in such manner as the Central Government may specify in this behalf: Provided further that every statement recorded or document or thing received under this sub-section shall be deemed to be the evidence collected during the course of investigation.
(12) Upon receipt of a letter of request from a court or an authority in a country or place outside India, competent to issue such letter in that country or place for the examination of any person or production of any document or thing in relation to affairs of a company under investigation in that country or place, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, forward such letter of request to the court concerned, which shall thereupon summon the person before it and record his statement or cause any document or thing to be produced, or send the letter to any inspector for investigation, who shall thereupon investigate into the affairs of company in the same manner as the affairs of a company are investigated under this Act and the inspector shall submit the report to such court within thirty days or such extended time as the court may allow for further action:
Provided that the evidence taken or collected under this sub-section or authenticated copies thereof or the things so collected shall be forwarded by the court, to the Central Government for transmission, in such manner as the Central Government may deem fit, to the court or the authority in country or place outside India which had issued the letter of request."
Section 219: Power of inspector to conduct investigation into affairs of related companies, etc. - If an inspector appointed under section 210 or section 212 or section 213 to investigate into the affairs of a company considers it necessary for the purposes of the investigation, to investigate also the affairs of--
( c) any other body corporate which is, or has at any relevant time been the company's subsidiary company or holding company, or a subsidiary company of its holding company;
(d) any other body corporate which is, or has at any relevant time been managed by any person as managing director or as manager, who is, or was, at the relevant time, the managing director or the manager of the company;
(e) any other body corporate whose Board of Directors comprises nominees of the company or is accustomed to act in accordance with the directions or instructions of the company or any of its directors; or
(f) any person who is or has at any relevant time been the company's managing director or manager or employee, he shall, subject to the prior approval of the Central Government, investigate into and report on the affairs of the other body corporate or of the managing director or manager, in so far as he considers that the results of his investigation are relevant to the investigation of the affairs of the company for which he is appointed."
Section 229: Penalty for furnishing false statement, mutilation, destruction of documents-
Where a person who is required to provide an explanation or make a statement during the course of inspection, inquiry or investigation, or an officer or other employee of a company or other body corporate which is also under investigation,
(a) destroys, mutilates or falsifies, or conceals or tampers or unauthorisedly removes, or is a party to the destruction, mutilation or falsification or concealment or tampering or unauthorised removal of, documents relating to the property, assets or affairs of the company or the body corporate;
(b) makes, or is a party to the making of, a false entry in any document concerning the company or body corporate; or
(c) provides an explanation which is false or which he knows to be false, he shall be punishable for fraud in the manner as provided in section 447."
SECTION 436: OFFENCES TRIABLE BY SPECIAL COURTS: -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) all offences specified under sub-section (1) of section 435 shall be triable only by the Special Court established for the area in which the registered office of the company in relation to which the offence is committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court concerned;
(b) where a person accused of, or suspected of the commission of, an offence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of section 167of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate:
Provided that where such Magistrate considers that the detention of such person upon or before the expiry of the period of detention is unnecessary, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction;
(c) the Special Court may exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to it under clause (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) in relation to an accused person who has been forwarded to him under that section; and
(d) a Special Court may, upon perusal of the police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act or upon a complaint in that behalf, take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.
(2) When trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) be charged at the same trial.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Special Court may, if it thinks fit, try in a summary way any offence under this Act which is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years:
Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial, no sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year shall be passed:
Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial, it appears to the Special Court that the nature of the case is such that the sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Special Court shall, after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in accordance with the procedure for the regular trial."
Section 438: Application of Code to proceedings before Special Court.- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor."
Section 446-A: Factors for determining level of punishment: The Court or the Special Court while deciding the amount of fine or imprisonment under this Act, shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:-
(a) Size of the company ;
(b) nature of business carried on by the company ;
(c ) injury to public interest ;
(d) nature of the default ; and (e ) repetition of the default.
Section 447: Punishment for fraud:- Without prejudice to any liability including repayment of any debt under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who is found to be guilty of fraud, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than the amount involved in the fraud, but which may extend to three times the amount involved in the fraud: Provided that where the fraud in question involves public interest, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than three years. Provided further that where the fraud involves an amount less than ten lack rupees or one per cent of the turnover the company, whichever is lower, and does not involve public interest, any person guilty of such fraud shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to twenty lakh rupees or with both."
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section -
(i) "fraud" in relation to affairs of a company or any body corporate, includes any act, omission, concealment of any fact or abuse of position committed by any person or any other person with the connivance in any manner, with intent to deceive, to gain undue advantage from, or to injure the interests of, the company or its shareholders or its creditors or any other person, whether or not there is any wrongful gain or wrongful loss;
(ii) "wrongful gain" means the gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled;
(iii) "wrongful loss " means the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing is legally entitled;"
7. After consideration of above special provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, it is clear that it is a code by itself as far as procedure for arrest, investigation and prosecution of the offence under Companies Act is concerned. The procedure provided under the Companies Act does not excludes the application of Cr.P.C completely. Section 212(6) excludes the applicability of Cr.P.C only for the limited purpose for treating the offence under Section 447 cognizable. Section 438 of the Companies Act makes it clear Section 212(14) of the Companies Act provides that the central government has to provide whether prosecution should be launched against " the companies and its officer or employees, who are or have been in employment in the company or any other person directly or indirectly connected with the affairs of the company." Therefore it appears that when the director of company is prosecuted the company should also be arrayed as an accused. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the informant is accepted that the applicant was illegally inducted in the company as director by fabrication of resolution, even then the prosecution under Section aforesaid can be launched against the applicant under the provisions of Companies Act since Section 212 (4) Cr.P.C clearly provides "prosecution of any other persons directly or indirectly connected with the affairs of the company". In the present case the entire investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer of the police and not by the Special Fraud Investigating Officer appointed under the Companies Act. First proviso to Section 212(6)(ii) provides that no person accused of any offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act shall be released on bail. The only exception is a person who is under age of 16 years or a woman or a sick or infirm person. The applicant in this case is a woman whose prayer for bail can also be considered under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. In the present case there is no approval from the central government for Investigating Officer to investigate the offence alleged against the applicant under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. Regarding criminal history of the applicant is appears that all the case have been lodged by or at the behest of her fellow directors who are part of the same company.
8. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, procedural flaws in investigation, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the female accused, offences alleged being triable by Magistrate, 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.
9. Let the applicant, Nitu Tripathi, in Case Crime No. 1590 of 2019, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Cantt., District- Varanasi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
6. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
7. In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court her bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.
8. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The applicant will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
9. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
10. 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.
11. The applicant shall not leave the country without informing the court 03 days in advance of her visiting abroad and shall furnish the complete itinerary stating the country/countries which she intends to visit and the period of her stay as also the addresses where she would be staying and her contact numbers. She shall also inform the court in writing about her return to India within a week thereof. Further, she shall not travel abroad during the period when the case is listed for effective hearings and her presence is required.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order date :- 22.10.2020 Rohit