Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10878 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11747 of 2024 Applicant :- Shantanu Anand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh,Karunesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Tripathi,Sudha Pal Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for complainant and perused the record. 3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in F.I.R. No. 269 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant was also implicated in 3 other cases, details of which are mentioned in the supplementary affidavit dated 18.11.2024. He has further submitted that as per prosecution case the applicant is one of the Directors of the Company in question by whom the informant was cheated. He has also submitted that on Oath the applicant has stated that he is not the Director of the Company in question and he has no concern. He has next submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the applicant for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 612 and has submitted that trial of offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is a criminal breach of trust and cannot run together. He has also submitted that the co-accused, Puneet Kumar Pandey has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 12449 of 2024. The applicant is in jail since 02.09.2024. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and have submitted that after collecting evidence charge sheet was filed against the applicant, but they do not dispute the fact that trial for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 cannot run together. They have also conceded that the co-accused Puneet Kumar Pandey has already been granted bail. 6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant, ground of parity with the co-accused and going through the contents of F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let the applicant-Shantanu Anand be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 269 of 2024 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC. (v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 VKS Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench