# Shiv Priya v. Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 591
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-22
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12591 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-priya-v-enforcement-directorate-lucknow-zone-49886
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 439 - Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002-Sections 3
& 4-the case is relating to the offence of
PMLA wherein the complaint has been
filed by the ED-A some of Rs.k 28.95
crores have already been recovered from
the
applicant
in
furtherance
of
the
proceed of crime-Rigour of Section 45 of
PMLA are satisfied, the applicant has
already served more than half of the
punishment, has not misused the liberty
of interim bail granted by the Apex CourtMore so, there is no possibility or
likelihood to conclude the trial with
expedition inasmuch as there are total
150 prosecution witnesses and only two
witnesses have been examined by nowThus, the applicant may be given the
benefit of dictum of Apex Court in K.A.
Najeeb case.(Para 1 to 29)

B. The twin conditions provided u/s 45 of
the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of
the accused to grant of bail, but it cannot
be said that the conditions provided u/s
45 impose absolute restraint on the grant
of bail. The discretion vests in the Court
which is not arbitrary or irrational but
judicial, guided by the principles of law as
provided u/s 45 of the 2002 Act. (Para 18)

The bail application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Shiv Priya Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone
591
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 591
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12591 of 2022

Shiv Priya ...Applicant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Rohit Tripathi, Rohit Tripathi

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 439 - Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002-Sections 3
& 4-the case is relating to the offence of
PMLA wherein the complaint has been
filed by the ED-A some of Rs.k 28.95
crores have already been recovered from
the
applicant
in
furtherance
of
the
proceed of crime-Rigour of Section 45 of
PMLA are satisfied, the applicant has
already served more than half of the
punishment, has not misused the liberty
of interim bail granted by the Apex CourtMore so, there is no possibility or
likelihood to conclude the trial with
expedition inasmuch as there are total
150 prosecution witnesses and only two
witnesses have been examined by nowThus, the applicant may be given the
benefit of dictum of Apex Court in K.A.
Najeeb case.(Para 1 to 29)

B. The twin conditions provided u/s 45 of
the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of
the accused to grant of bail, but it cannot
be said that the conditions provided u/s
45 impose absolute restraint on the grant
of bail. The discretion vests in the Court
which is not arbitrary or irrational but
judicial, guided by the principles of law as
provided u/s 45 of the 2002 Act. (Para 18)

The bail application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. U.O.I. Vs K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
2. Ramchand Karunakaran Vs E.D. & anr.. CRLA
No. 1650 of 2022 {SLP (Crl.) No 6061 of 2020}

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri I.B. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit
Sinha, Sri Aditya Vaibhav Singh and Sri
M.G. Khan, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned
counsel for the Enforcement Directorate
(E.D.).

2. As per learned counsel for the
applicant, the present applicant (Shiv Priya)
is languishing in jail since 03.12.2019 in
Sessions Case No.1266 of 2020 arising out
of Crime/ ECIR No.06/PMLA/LKZO/ U/s
3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002, Police Station-ED/Lucknow
titled as Assistant Director Enforcement
Directorate vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.,
pending before the learned Special JudgePMLA, Lucknow (U.P.).

3. As per Sri I.B. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate for the applicant, the
present applicant happens to be erstwhile
Director in Amrapali Group of Companies
(here-in-after referred to as "AGC") which
was into real estate and allied business in
Noida/ Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The
role of the present applicant being qualified
Civil Engineer by qualification was limited
to conceiving Architectural Planning and
Engineering thereof and was not involved
in financial planning of the Company. The
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present applicant on account of being
Director in Ultra-Home Construction Pvt.
Ltd. i.e. flagship company of AGC was
drawing
salary
and
was
receiving
professional fee from other companies on
account of rendering professional services
related to their project being permissible
under law. So many buyers of the said
company feeling themselves aggrieved as
they have not been provided the flats/ plots
despite those buyers deposited their huge
amount in the company, as many as 30
F.I.Rs. have been registered against the
Directors of the Company including the
present applicant under Sections 406, 420,
409 & 120-B I.P.C. in the year 2018 and
the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police
(in short EOW) has arrested the Directors
of the Company including the present
applicant. The present applicant was taken
into
custody
by
Noida
Police
on
11.10.2018. The aforesaid arrest was made
pursuant to the order of Apex Court passed
in Writ Petition (Civil) No.940 of 2017;
Bikram Chaterjee vs. Union of India &
others to assist / complete the Forensic
Auditor's relating to the allegations of the
F.I.Rs. On 26.02.2019 EOW, Delhi Police
has taken custody of the present applicant.

4. On 01.07.2019, the E.D. has filed
Enforcement Cases Information Report
(here-in-after referred to as the "ECIR")
No.
ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2019.
The
E.D. has taken custody of the present
applicant on 03.12.2019.

5. On 16.03.2020, the Session Case
No.1266 of 2020 was filed against the
present
applicant.
On
13.08.2020
a
Criminal
Complaint
/
Session
Case
No.1234 of 2021 was filed against 04 coaccused persons. On 06.04.2022, 03
Criminal Complaint/ Session Case No.1266
of 2020, 1234 of 2021 and 1219 of 2022
were consolidated involving the present
applicant. On 26.04.2022, the charges were
framed against the present applicant.

6. Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate for the applicant has submitted
that with effect from 21.05.2022 till date as
many as 15 dates have been fixed, and only
two
prosecution
witnesses
could
be
examined and the chief-examination of
PW-3 has been completed on 01.02.2023
but he could not be cross-examined till
date. Sri Singh has filed certified copy of
the
order-sheet
to
show
that
the
examination of the prosecution witness/
witnesses could not be done properly on
account of non-cooperation on the part of
the prosecution inasmuch as the case is
being regularly attended from the side of
the present applicant/ defence.

7. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that there are 150
Prosecution Witnesses which are to be
examined and if the progress of trail is seen
with effect from 21.05.2022, wherein the
prosecution witnesses are not co-operating,
the trial in question cannot be completed in
further five or six years. Further, if the total
period of judicial custody of the present
applicant is considered, it is about four
years and four months with effect from his
first date of custody i.e. 11.10.2018 and if
the period of custody taken by the E.D. is
considered, it is more than three years and
three months and maximum punishment for
the offence wherein the trial is going on is
seven years. Therefore, in the first situation
the present applicant has served much more
than half of the sentence and in the second
situation the present applicant has served
about half of the sentence.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for the
applicant has further submitted that the
3 All. Shiv Priya Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone
593
present applicant is in judicial custody with
effect from 11.10.2018 for the same
allegations in the same issue, however, the
agencies are different. Therefore, his total
custody period may be considered as more
than four years and four months. If the
progress of trial remains the same, there is
likelihood that the present applicant will
have to serve the maximum period of
punishment i.e. seven years.

9. Sri Singh has apprised that the
present applicant was granted an interim
bail by the Apex Court vide order dated
22.08.2022 passed in Writ Petition (Cril.)
No.311 of 2022; Shiv Priya vs. N.C.T.
Delhi and another and he remained on
interim bail till 07.11.2022. Thereafter, he
surrendered before the Court of C.M.M.
East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
He did not misuse the the liberty of interim
bail granted by the Apex Court. He is again
under custody with effect from 07.11.2022.
Sri Singh has referred Annexure No.RA-3
which is a custody certificate of the present
applicant relating to his custody in the
matter of E.D. from 03.12.2019 to
24.08.2022.

10. Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate for the applicant has referred the
dictum of Apex Court rendered in re:-
Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in
(2021) 3 SCC 713 referring paras-14, 15 &
17 to submit that since there is no
likelihood to conclude the trial with
expedition and the applicant has suffered
incarceration for a significant period of
time, so he may be enlarged on bail. Paras14, 15 & 17 read as under:-

"14. The facts of the instant case
are more egregious than these two above
cited
instances.
Not
only
has
the
respondent been in jail for much more
than five years, but there are 276
witnesses left to be examined. Charges
have been framed only on 27.11.2020.
Still further, two opportunities were given
to the appellant -NIA who has shown no
inclination to screen its endless list of
witnesses. It also deserves mention that of
the thirteen co--accused who have been
convicted, none have been given a
sentence of more than eight years'
rigorous imprisonment. It can therefore
be legitimately expected that if found
guilty, the respondent too would receive a
sentence within the same ballpark. Given
that two -third of such incarceration is
already complete, it appears that the
respondent has already paid heavily for
his acts of fleeing from justice.

15. This Court has clarified in
numerous judgments that the liberty
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution
would cover within its protective ambit
not only due procedure and fairness but
also access to justice and a speedy trial.
In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee
(Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v.
Union of India15, it was held that
undertrials
cannot
indefinitely
be
detained pending trial. Ideally, no person
ought to suffer adverse consequences of
his acts unless the same is established
before a neutral arbiter. However, owing
to the practicalities of real life where to
secure an effective trial and to ameliorate
the risk to society in case a potential
criminal is left at large pending trial,
Courts are tasked with deciding whether
an individual ought to be released
pending trial or not. Once it is obvious
that a timely trial would not be possible
and
the
accused
has
suffered
incarceration for a significant period of
time,
Courts
would
ordinarily
be
obligated to enlarge them on bail.

16. ...
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. It is thus clear to us that the
presence of statutory restrictions like
Section 43-D (5) of UAPA per -se does not
oust the ability of the Constitutional Courts
to grant bail on grounds of violation of
Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both
the restrictions under a Statue as well as
the
powers
exercisable
under
Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of
proceedings, Courts are expected to
appreciate the legislative policy against
grant of bail but the rigours of such
provisions will melt down where there is no
likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable
time
and
the
period
of
incarceration
already
undergone
has
exceeded
a
substantial
part
of
the
prescribed sentence. Such an approach
would safeguard against the possibility of
provisions like Section 43-D (5) of UAPA
being used as the sole metric for denial of
bail
or
for
wholesale
breach
of
constitutional right to speedy trial."

11. Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate for the applicant has also referred
the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re:-
Ramchand Karunakaran vs. Directorate of
Enforcement & anr. (Criminal Appeal
No.1650 of 2022, arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.6061 of 2020) dated 23.09.2022 by
submitting that in the aforesaid case the
Apex Court granted bail to the said accused
person noticing the fact that the said
accused person has completed more than
three years of actual custody in connection
with the offence in respect of PMLA. The
aforesaid accused person was however the
Senior Citizen. In the present case, the
applicant has completed more than three
years of actual custody in connection with
the
offence
relating
to
the
PMLA.
Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. The
relevant para-6 reads as under:-

"6. We are presently concerned
with the proceedings arising out of the
complaint filed under the provisions of
PML Act. In the instant case, the appellant
was taken in custody on 19.06.2019 and
has remained in custody since then. Thus,
the appellant has completed more than
three years of actual custody in connection
with the offence in respect of PML Act."

12. Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate for the applicant has also
submitted that the present applicant was
granted an opportunity of hearing by the
Apex Court in respect of the issue regularly
vide order dated 21.02.2022, the Receiver
was appointed by the Apex Court and the
Receiver
has
prima-facie
found
discrepancy with respect to recovery
relating to the present applicant. The
amount was substantially reduced by the
Forensic Auditors.

13. Sri Singh has submitted that the
amount alleged by the E.D. was Rs.95.54
crores. The amount removed by the
Forensic Auditors was 68.88 crores.
Therefore, the actual remaining amount is
Rs.26.66 crores. A sum of Rs.28.95 crores
has already been recovered from the
applicant. Therefore, the present applicant
is very much hopeful that after the
conclusion of trial, he may not only be
acquitted from the charges but a sum of
Rs.2.29 crores would be refunded to him.
Therefore, in view of the above, no amount
is recoverable from the present applicant.

14. Learned Senior Advocate has also
submitted that the learned counsel for the
E.D. has incorrectly mentioned that as
many as 19 cases involving the scheduled
offences have been registered against the
present applicant on the basis of which
investigation in the present matter was
3 All. Shiv Priya Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone
595
undertaken and the applicant continuous to
be in judicial custody in most of the cases.
However, the present ECIR was registered
on the basis of 14 cases i.e. FIR Nos. 336
of 2018, 273 of 2017, 561 of 2017, 563 of
2017, 565 of 2017, 566 of 2017, 118 of
2018, 70 of 2018, 219 of 2018, 783 of
2017, 44 of 2018, 213 of 2017, 767 of 2017
and 123 of 2018. The copy of the ECIR is
already on record and filed as Annexure
No.4 of the bail application. The applicant
has not been arrested in any of the
predicate offence as the chart to that effect
is already on record and filed as Annexure
No.20 of the bail application.

15. Per contra, Sri Rohit Tripathi,
learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted
that the applicant by means of the instant
application has prayed for bail in Session
Case No.1266 of 2020, arising out of
ECIR/06/PMLA/LKZO/2019. He has also
submitted that the inquiry/ investigation in
the present matter was initiated/ monitored
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by
means of Writ Petition (Civil)No.940 of
2017; Bikram Chaterjee vs. UOI and
others. It has also been submitted that the
bail application of the co-accused, namely,
Anil Kumar Sharma has been rejected by
this Hon'ble Court on three occasions
despite the fact that the said applicant had
extensively pleaded medical grounds. On
that
Sri
I.B.
Singh,
learned
Senior
Advocate has submitted that his bail
applications were rejected either during
investigation or before framing of the
charges but now the stage is altogether
different as demonstrated above.

16. Sri Tripathi has further submitted
that as per the complaint, as amount of
Rs.5982.84 crores have been diverted by
the various accused persons and the present
applicant had a major role not only as a
beneficiary of the loot of public money but
also for being actively involved n the
decision
making
exercise
regarding
diversion of funds raised as a consequence
of deposits by thousands of prospective
home buyers. The role of the present
applicant in the process of diversion of
funds and his consequent enrichment out of
the
laundered
money
have
been
convincingly
established
by
the
documentary and oral evidence collected
by E.D. The modus operandi adopted by
the accused persons including the present
applicant and the proceeds of crime, the
evidence is rather overwhelming. In this
regard, Sri Tripathi has drawn attention of
this Court towards paras-4.12 to 4.21 and
paras-5.1.17, 5.1.24, 5.1.26, 5.1.50, 5.1.52,
5.1.54
&
5.1.55
to
5.1.65
of
the
memorandum of complaint (Annexure
No.7).

17. Sri Tripathi has submitted that the
above mentioned evidence is mostly in
form of bank accounts and statements of
the accused persons, which have not been
disputed. In any case, in view of the reverse
presumption stipulated in Section 24 of the
PMLA, it is the applicant's duty to
discharge the burden of proof regarding
these documents. The applicant/ accused
has miserably failed to place on record any
cogent or reliable material which can even
prima facie dislodge the presumption
against him.

18. Sri Tripathi has further submitted
that the present case is one where accused
persons have been charged for various
offences for having carried out mass loot of
public money deposited by innocent
prospective
home
buyers
and
have
laundered the said money and have used it
for their personal enrichment. Therefore, in
view of the overwhelming and irrebutable
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence against the present applicant, the
present application does not pass the twin
test stipulated in Section 45 (i) of the
PMLA. This, coupled with the fact that the
act complained of involves diversion of
funds of thousands of innocent prospective
home
buyers
dis-entitles
the
present
applicant to be released on bail. Therefore,
the present bail application deserves to be
rejected.

19. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record.

20. At the very outset, it is clear that I
am not entering into merits of the issue
inasmuch as this is a domain of the learned
trial court to look into the entire issue,
contentions of the parties and perused the
entire material and evidences available on
the
record.
The
consideration
and
observation of this order would only be
confined to disposal of the bail application.
Therefore, the learned trial court shall not
influence from any observations or findings
of this order and shall conduct and
conclude the trial independently strictly in
accordance with law with expedition
without
giving
any
unnecessary
adjournment to any of the parties by fixing
short dates and if any of the parties do not
co-operate in the trial proceedings properly
any appropriate coercive steps which are
permissible under law may be taken.

21. In the present case, undoubtedly,
the present applicant was taken into
custody on 11.10.2018 for the same
allegations for which the E.D. has filed
ECIR in question. However, EOW of Delhi
Police has taken custody of the present
applicant on 26.10.2019 and the E.D. has
taken custody on 03.12.2019. Therefore,
for all practical purposes the present
applicant is in judicial custody for more
than four years and four months and if the
period of judicial custody, so taken by the
E.D. is considered, it is more than three
years and three months. Undisputedly, the
maximum punishment for the offence
wherein the trial is going on is seven year.
Therefore, in both the situations the present
applicant has served half of the sentence.

22. The certified copy of the ordersheet of the learned trial court shows that
charges were framed on 26.04.2022,
thereafter with effect from 21.05.2022 the
prosecution witness was to be examined.
Notably, with effect from 21.05.2022 till
date as many 15 dates have been fixed but
only 02 prosecution witnesses could be
examined and the chief examination of the
prosecution
witness
No.3
has
been
completed on 01.02.2023 but he could not
cross-examine in subsequent dates. The
order-sheet reveals that the prosecution
witnesses are not co-operating properly and
there is no report to the effect that from the
side
of
the
applicant/
defence
any
adjournment has been sought. Notably,
there are 150 prosecution witnesses, out of
which, the examination of 02 prosecution
witnesses have been completed. Therefore,
if the progress of trial remains the same,
there is no possibility or likelihood to
conclude the trial with expedition, at least it
may not likely be completed in further five
or six years and in that case the present
applicant will have to serve the maximum
punishment of seven years even before
completion of trial. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, I would like to refer the
dictum of Apex Court in re: K.A. Najeeb
(supra) wherein the Apex Court has held
that once it is obvious that admittedly the
trial would not be possible and the accused
has suffered incarceration for a significant
period of time, the court would ordinarily
3 All. Shiv Priya Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow Zone
597
be obligated to be enlarged him on bail.
The case before the Apex Court in re: K.A.
Najeeb (supra) was relating to the offence
of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 (in short UAPA) wherein the
punishment is more severe than the
punishment prescribed under PMLA.

23. In the present case, I find that
admittedly trial would not be possible and
the
present
applicant
has
suffered
incarceration for a significant period of
time, as considered above, therefore, the
present applicant may be given the benefit
of dictum of Apex Court in re: K.A. Najeeb
(supra).

24. In the subsequent judgment of
Apex Court rendered in re: Ramchand
Karunakaran (supra) wherein the case is
relating to the offence of PMLA wherein
the complaint has been filed by the E.D.
The Apex Court has granted bail to the
accused persons considering the fact that
the said accused persons have completed
more than three years of actual custody in
connection with offence of PMLA. One
more fact may be considered that the
present applicant was granted interim bail
by the Apex Court and as soon as the
period
of
interim
bail
expired,
he
immediately surrendered before the trial
court and during the period of his interim
bail he did not misuse the liberty of bail
and has abide by all terms and conditions
of bail order.

25. At this stage, I am not considering
the arguments of learned Senior Advocate
Sri I.B. Singh that more than actual amount
has already been recovered from the
applicant inasmuch as the said amount has
been determined by the Forensic Auditor in
compliance of order of Apex Court and
those things shall remain subject matter of
the trial proceedings. Therefore, what is the
actual amount and what is to be recovered
from the present applicant would be
determined by the learned trial court by
considering all the relevant evidences and
material as well as appreciating the
arguments of learned counsel for the
parties. The opinion of the Forensic
Auditor shall be tested by the learned trial
court in the light of the strict principles of
the Evidence Act, however, the opinion of
the Forensic Auditor being an opinion of an
expert, it shall be considered by the learned
trial court carefully.

26. Learned counsel for the E.D., Sri
Rohit Tripathi, has been asked as to
whether there is any possibility to conclude
the trial with expedition where there are
total 150 prosecution witnesses are to be
examined
and
only
two
prosecution
witnesses have been examined with effect
from 21.05.2022 till date, Sri Tripathi has
stated that he shall instruct the learned
counsel for E.D. who is conducting the case
before the learned trial court to do the
needful to expedite the trial however he has
fairly stated that it will take some
substantial time to examine total 150
prosecution witnesses. He has been further
confronted as to whether the present
applicant has misused the liberty of interim
bail so granted by the Apex Court, he has
submitted
that
there
is
no
adverse
information against the present applicant to
that effect.

27. On being further confronted
regarding
the
case
of
Ramchand
Karunakaran (supra) where the Apex
Court granted bail to the accused person for
an offence of PMLA considering the fact
that the said accused has completed more
than three years of actual custody, Sri
Tripathi has stated that since the Apex
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court has granted bail to the accused
person, therefore, he has nothing to say on
that but there was one more fact noticed by
the Apex Court that the said accused person
was a senior citizen.

28. Since the learned counsel for the
E.D. has been heard at good length and a
some of Rs.28.95 crores have already been
recovered from the applicant in furtherance
of the proceed of crime and considering the
statement that nothing remains to be
recovered from him now, I find it
appropriate that the present applicant may
be enlarged on bail as rigour of Section 45
of PMLA are satisfied, particularly in view
of the fact that the present applicant has
already served more than half of the
punishment, has not misused the liberty of
interim bail granted by the Apex Court and
there is no possibility or likelihood to
conclude the trial with expedition inasmuch
as there are total 150 prosecution witnesses
and only two prosecution witnesses have
been examined by now. The Apex Court in
para-86 of the dictum of Satender Kumar
Antil vs. CBI and others, Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.5191 of 2021 has
held as under:-

"Special Acts (Category C)

86. Now we shall come to
Category C. We do not wish to deal with
individual enactments as each special Act
has got an objective behind it, followed by
the rigour imposed. The general principle
governing delay would apply to these
categories also. To make it clear, the
provision contained in Section 436-A of the
Code would apply to the Special Acts also
in the absence of any specific provision.
For example, the rigour as provided under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not
come in the way in such a case as we are
dealing with the liberty of a person. We do
feel that more the rigour, the quicker the
adjudication ought to be. After all, in these
types of cases number of witnesses would
be very less and there may not be any
justification for prolonging the trial.
Perhaps there is a need to comply with the
directions of this Court to expedite the
process and also a stricter compliance of
Section 309 of the Code."

29. Accordingly, the bail application
is allowed.

30. Let the present applicant (Shiv
Priya) be released on bail in the aforesaid
case crime number on his furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

(ii) 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 of the
Indian Penal Code.

(iii) 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. is issued and the
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 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 All. Umakant Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
599

(iv) The applicant 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. 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.

(v) The applicant shall not leave
the country without prior permission of the
Court and shall surrender his passport to
the court concerned.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 599
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 22865 of 2020

Umakant Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, Sri Devbratt Yadav,
Sri Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Hanuman Deen Verma

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B, 454,
380 & 447 - Prevention of Damage to
Public
Property
Act,
1984-Sections
3(2)(ka)-accused-applicant, his sons and
other co-accused, had taken forcible
possession and occupied the said property
of Gandhi Ashram-accused-applicant was
two times MP and one time MLA of Uttar
Pradesh-The people could not dare to
complain against him because of his close
proximity to the ruling elite, power , terror
and fear-The rich but inglorious criminal
history of the applicant of 80 cases shows
his long and heinous journey in world of
crime-Such a person is a constant threat
to the civil society governed by the rule of
law.(Para 1 to 12)

The bail application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Public Interest Foundation & ors.. Vs U.O.I. &
anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant as well as Sri Hanuman Deen
Verma, learned counsel for the complainant
and Sri J.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.

2. The present bail application under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
bail by the accused applicant in Case Crime
No. 260 of 2019, under Sections 120-B,
454, 380, 447 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(ka)
of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984, Police Station -
Phoolpur, District - Azamgarh.

3. The F.I.R. in question got
registered on a written complaint of Lal
Chand Yadav S/o Ram Bujharat on
04.10.2019 on the allegation that on
27.09.2019
at
around
5-6
p.m.
on
exhortation of present accused applicant,
his sons, namely, Ravikant Yadav and
Dineshkant Yadav and several unknown
accomplices broke open the locks of
Gandhi Ashram and stolen the government
property and documents. The said Gandhi