This court granted bail to Karunesh Sharma, a shareholder falsely implicated as a director in a company deposit fraud case. The applicant furnished a personal bond with sureties subject to conditional release.
Release on bail on personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2114 of 2018
Applicant :- Karunesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the prosecution case a Company by the name of Ezee Way Infrastructure & Land Developers Ltd. had accepted deposits from the members of public even though it had no banking license and later, it committed default in making payment to the depositors. It has been submitted that though the applicant is named in the First Information Report with allegation that he was one of the Directors but the fact of the matter is that Ezee Way Infrastructure & Land Developers Ltd. is a duly incorporated Company of which neither the applicant is Managing Director nor Director. Specific averment in that regard has been made in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has been submitted that the applicant is only a share holder of the Company. The Form 32 has been appended so as to disclose as to who were the Directors of the Company. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submission of the learned counsel that various FIRs in this regard have been lodged and applicant has already been bailed out in so many cases of similar nature namely, in Case Crime No. 551 of 2015, Case Crime No. 929 of 2014, Case Crime No. 0706 of 2016 and Case Crime No. 1968 of 2015 by this Court vide orders dated 17.2.2016, 19.4.2016, 21.12.2017 respectively passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4779 of 2016, 39981 of 2015, 46982 of 2017 and 46956 of 2017. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of
the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6th July, 2013.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but has not been able to dispute that the applicant was not a Director of the Company.
Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Karunesh Sharma involved in Case Crime No. 1991 of 2015, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Arti Sharma
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an applicant falsely implicated as a director of a company in a cheating case where he is merely a shareholder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karunesh Sharma
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
