Point of Law: Mere fact that the accused is in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration to release the accused on bail.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kapil Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI and also perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 810 of 2018, under Sections 147, 149, 386, 329, 420, 467, 468, 471, 394, 506, 120-B, 364-A IPC, Police Station-Krishna Nagar, District-Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Facts in brief giving rise to the present application are that the Informant/victim is a resident of Alambagh, Lucknow and engaged in the real estate business having his office at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. At the time of the offence, the accused Atique Ahmad, Ex-Member of Parliament, Phulpur, Allahabad was detained in Deoria Jail and he had tried to pressurize the Informant for extortion of money for about two years and out of fear, the Informant had also given him some amount as such. The two henchmen of Atique Ahmad, namely, Mohd. Farooq and Jaki Ahmad had been trying to extort money from the Informant for about several months. The said two accused persons had also taken possession of the office of the Informant forcibly and got their names inducted in the board of the company and procured digital signatures of the Informant and his sister Aarti Jaiswal. Even after that the Informant did not transfer any shares of the company to them. On 26.12.2018, another goon of Atique Ahmad took the Informant to Deoria Jail where Atique Ahmad along with his son Umar and 10-12 other persons were found present. The two accomplices of Atique Ahmad, namely, Jafarullah and Gulam Sarvar (the present applicant) had beaten the Informant mercilessly thereby breaking his fingers and causing him several external and internal injuries. The accused Atique Ahmad in the jail premises itself got the companies M.J. Infra Housing Private Limited, M.J. Infra Green Private Limited, M.J. Infra Land L.L.P. Private Limited and M.J. Infra State Private Limited transferred forcibly in the name of his associates Mohd. Farooq and Jaki Ahmad. The accused Atique Ahmad has even retained the Fortuner Car of the Informant bearing No. UP-32 JR 1804 with him. It has also been alleged in the FIR that the accused Atique Ahmad had obtained signatures of the Informant on blank letter heads including his resignation letters and also pressurized the Informant to make forged signatures of his sister on the blank papers. The accused Atique Ahmad and his associates forcibly obtained the digital signatures of the Informant and his sister and thereby got the names of their associates inducted in all the aforesaid companies.

4. The instant FIR has been lodged at Police Station-Krishna Nagar, Lucknow. The Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 23.4.2019 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2016 in the matter of Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay and Others Vs. Union of India and Others transferred the investigation of the case to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and was also directed to submit quarterly status report of the investigation to the Court. The main accused Atique Ahmad was then shifted to Ahmedabad Jail, Gujarat.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

5. Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has stated that the applicant is being maliciously prosecuted in the present case. The jurisdiction of the case falls within the Police Station-Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and not Krishna Nagar where the instant FIR has been initially lodged. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the statement of the Informant has been recorded four times by the I.O. and in each of the subsequent statement, he has improvised from the previous one. Initially, the two statements were recorded by the local police and the subsequent two have been recorded by the CBI. Absolutely vague allegation has been made in the statement of the Informant that the appli