The court granted bail based on the lack of evidence against the applicant and the absence of prior criminal history, emphasizing the need for fair trial conditions.

JUDGMENT

Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri. Krishna Kumar Tiwari holding brief of Shri. Rupesh Gupta, learned counsel for the informant/complainant and perused the record.

2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant/Manish Singh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.0195/2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Deva, District Barabanki during pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

4. It is further submitted that the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicant, are to the tune that he knowingly has uploaded the receipts with regard to payment of Rs. 27 lakh and Rs. 8 lakhs in the system, which were forged and in fact no such payment has been made.

5. It is vehemently submitted that allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. was investigated by the investigating officer and during the course of investigation certain discrepancies and irregularities were noticed by the higher police officer namely Circle Officer of the Police concerned and in this regard a letter dated 06.12.2022 was written by the Circle Officer of the Police concerned to the Station House Officer with regard to the fair investigation of the case and thereafter further investigation was conducted in light of the letter written by the Circle Officer, but despite there being no evidence/material against the applicant, charge sheet has been submitted.

6. Elaborating further, it is submitted that after the letter was written by the Circle Officer of the Police concerned with regard to fair investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of one key witness namely Deepak Satyani in questions and answers form and Deepak Satyani has stated specifically that the forged receipts with regard to payment of money mentioned above was prepared by one Paras Mehta and forwarded to him (Deepak Satyani), which in turn were forwarded by him (Deepak Satyani) to the applicant through Whatsapp and these receipts were uploaded by the applicant in the system with regard to payment of aforesaid money.

7. It is vehemently submitted that if the statement of Deepak Satyani, who is star witness of this crime, is believed as it is, it would appear that it is a case of no evidence. It is also submitted that under the pressure applied by the local police, the applicant and other co-accused persons have given affidavit admitting their guilt in order to get rid of any penal consequences, however, the said affidavit, which has been placed against the applicant and other accused persons, is not having any significance moreso when co-accused Vivek Awasthi, who has already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9729 of 2023, was also a signatory to that affidavit.

8. He further submits that the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this matter since 24.04.2023 and there is no any other criminal antecedents of the accused-applicant and there is no likelihood that the accused-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or may misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

10. Shri. Krishna Kumar Tiwari holding brief of Shri. Rupesh Gupta, learned counsel for the informant/complainant submits that the instant applicant is the kingpin of the crime and it is the applicant, who has managed the whole fraud and having regard to the responsibilities enjoying by the applicant, the fraud could not be possible without his connivance, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.