Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11146 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9822 of 2024 Applicant :- Kuldeep And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Rai,Dhirendra Vikram Singh,Kamlesh Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saad Husain Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. On 06.11.2024, while passing the order, this Court has noted that counsel for the complainant was not present, subsequently, on 06.01.2025 this Court has noted that 'no is present for complainant' and ultimately, on 18.02.2025, the following order was passed:- "The Court has noticed that the counsel for the complainant did not appear in the revised call. As last opportunity, put up this matter day after tomorrow i.e. on 20.02.2025. It is expected that learned counsel for the complainant shall remain present on the next date, otherwise the Court will proceed in absence of the counsel for the complainant." On 18.02.2025, the case was taken up the in the revised list, even then counsel for the complainant was not present and therefore, this matter is listed today to provide last opportunity to counsel for the complainant. This case is taken up in the revised list. No one is present for the complainant. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is proceedings in the matter. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 633 of 2019 under sections 308, 323, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC, P.S.-Bangarmau District -Unnao. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the allegation against the applicants is that the owner of the mill had given an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the security guard while instructing him that he would provide the said amount to the applicants, who were working in the mill as Manager and the accountant, though, there is no documentary evidence in support of such allegations. He submits that once the applicant no. 1 was Manager and applicant no. 2 was working as cashier in the said Mill, then there was no occasion for mill owner to provide the amount in cash to the security guard to again provide the same to the applicants, which prima facie shows the improbable story, concocted by the informant. He added that due to some animosity, the present first information report has been lodged, while saying that the cash amount Rs, 5,00,000/- has been misappropriated by the applicants. Next submission is that the chargesheet has been filed and thus, there is no possibility that they would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses coupled with the fact that the applicants have no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and they are languishing in jail since 03.08.2024 and they undertake that in case, they are granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that there are specific allegation in the first information report that the applicants have committed cheat & fraud by misappropriating cash amount Rs.5,00,000/- which was given by the mill owner, which is apparent from the statement of the mill owner, which is appended alongwith the counter affidavit. He next submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicants were involved in committing offence as such, chargeseheet has been filed, thus, submission is that they are not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicants are languishing in jail since 03.08.2024; the applicants have no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicants so as to connect them with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicants have undertaken that in case, they are granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicants- Kuldeep and Anuj involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicants shall file undertakings to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. They shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsels. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench