The court determined that allegations of misappropriation reflected a civil dispute rather than criminal intent, allowing bail based on the absence of prior criminal history and ongoing civil complaints.

JUDGMENT

Sameer Jain, J.

Heard Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420 IPC & 66 D IT Act, Police Station Lalpur, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and according to the FIR, applicant is the Proprietor of Real Estate Firm, Devesh Real Estate and after retirement, informant shown his desire to make investment and on the instigation of the applicant, he gave him Rs. 14,40,000/- and after receiving the money, applicant also provided him plot booking receipts but applicant neither provided plot to the informant nor returned his money.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant is false and baseless and from the FIR, itself it appears that it is a dispute of civil nature.

5. He further submitted that with regard to the money of Rs. 14,40,000/- informant and his wife, filed three criminal complaints against the applicant under section 138 N.I. Act which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application and in these cases applicant has been summoned and he is facing trial.

6. He further submitted that even there is no evidence on record which can show that applicant have any intention to cheat the informant since beginning.

7. He further submitted that apart from the present case and three cases of N.I. Act lodged by the informant, applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 6.3.2024.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant by playing fraud, misappropriated Rs. 14,40,000/- of the informant and however, applicant issued three cheques of the same amount but none of the cheques could be honoured and therefore, informant had to file criminal complaint of Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant was not having any intention to deceit the informant and therefore, considering the nature of allegation and amount misappropriated by the applicant, his bail application should be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

10. However, as per allegation by playing fraud, applicant misappropriated Rs. 14,40,000/- of the informant but it appears that with regard to Rs. 14,40,000/- three complaints were also filed by the informant against the applicant under N.I. Act and all the three complaints are still pending and in all the complaints, applicant has been summoned, therefore, prima facie, it appears to be a case of money dispute.

Further, this Court finds force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that from the perusal of the record it could not be reflected that applicant was having any intention to deceit the informant since beginning.

Further, apart from the present case and three cases of Negotiable Instruments Act, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, he is in jail since 6.3.2021.

11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant-Dharmraj Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly