JUDGMENT :

Siddharth, J.

1. As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.

2. Heard Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for State through video conferencing.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, Prateek Jain, in Case Crime No. 1906 of 2020 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station- Sihani Gate, District- Ghaziabad.

4. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

5. There are allegations against the applicant that he along with other coaccused persons is director of a builder company. The applicant applied for a flat being constructed by the company and paid Rs. 3,25,000/- by means of a cheque as the booking amount. Thereafter he took loan and paid total amount of Rs. 27,27,875/-. He has not been given possession of flat.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not the director of the builder company in dispute. He is only related to the other directors and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case. On account of demonitization and the slump caused in the business of real estate the present dispute arose. The informant has remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

8. Since the application has been heard through video conferencing and the connectivety was not very good, the Court could not gather the complete submissions raised at the Bar. However, keeping in view the mandate of Section 438(5) Cr.P.C., which requires disposal of anticipatory bail application within 30 days and also considering the spread of second wave of novel corona virus, the hearing of this bail application does not deserves to be adjourned in the larger interest of justice. Due to lack of proper technical support the cause of justice cannot be allowed to suffer.

9. After considering the rival contentions, this Court before proceeding further, considers it appropriate to go through the Section 438 Cr.P.C, U.P. Amendment of 2019, which is as follows:-

"438. Direction for grant bail to person apprehending arrest:

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested; either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:

Provided