Allahabad High Court
Harish Gulla vs State Of U.P. on 7 December, 2019
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- BAIL No. - 6908 of 2019 Applicant :- Harish Gulla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Srivastava,Anurag Kumar Singh,Bhanwar Pal Singh,Chetan Dutt,Rachna Gulla,Vijay Kumar Bajapai,[Thru Pairokar Inperson] Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhinav Nath Tripathi,Abhishek Khare,Anand Mani Tripathi Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that Memorandum of Understanding between M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited and the complainant was executed and Ms. Neelima Saxena and Neeraj Tiwari were authorised to sign the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of Company with the complainant. The said Memorandum of Understanding is on record. It is next contended that in the entire F.I.R., no allegation against the present applicant has been made regarding forgery committed with the complainant. It is further contended that the named accused persons, namely, Neelima Saxena, the authorised signatory, Ajay Vishwakarma-Manager, B.P. Singh-Director and P.N. Mishra, another Director of the Company have been dropped and closure report has been filed by the Investigating Officer. The applicant is an employee of the Company and has no concern with the alleged crime. The Applicant was not competent to sign any document on behalf of the Company. The aforesaid Company has already initiated legal proceedings before National Company Law Tribunal in four matters against the complainant. The orders of the Tribunal are on record as Annexure 15 to the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that it is purely a civil dispute. Admittedly, he is not the beneficiary and payment has been made by the complainant through cheque to the Company. Even the contents of First Information Report is taken as it is, no case of forgery has been made out against the applicant.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that against the applicant there are seven F.I.R. and in para 18 of the rejoinder affidavit, the details of these cases have been given, out of seven in five cases applicant has been enlarged on bail on the basis of settlement made by the company of the applicant, namely, Ansal AGI with the complainants of the respective cases. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that complainant being an employee of the company is not in a position to enter into compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has invited the attention of the Court towards the certificate issued by the Company Secretary to the effect that the applicant was never the director of M/S Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited rather he is holding the post of Deputy President in the company and applicant is in jail since 06.06.2019. He further submits that matter is triable by Magistrate.
It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for parties, this Court has noticed that named accused persons such as Neelima Saxena, the authorised signatory, B.P. Singh- Director and P.N. Mishra, another Director of the Company have been dropped while filing of the chargesheet by the Investigating Officer and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the other five cases on the basis of settlement made by the company on behalf of the applicant and the applicant is not in a position to enter into the settlement with the complainant and the matter is triable by Magistrate and chargesheet in the case has already been filed makes out a case for bail for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Harish Gulla involved in Crime No. 162 of 2018, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 409 IPC, Police Station - Vibhuti Khand, District - Lucknow 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(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) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Shubhankar