Prasana Dileep Rao Desh Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.323 of 2018, registered with Police Station Rudrapur,

District Udham Singh Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C.

An FIR No.323 of 2018 was lodged by one Rajesh Kumar on 16.06.2018 alleging therein that the informant was the proprietor of “Pragati

Foodsâ€, having its office at A.G.M. 74/4, Galla Mandi, Rudrapur and was dealing with the import and export of fruits, vegetables and spices. In the

year 2017, the informant came in contact with the present applicant, who proposed for undertaking business together. It was agreed between the

parties that the present applicant would send fruits, spices and vegetables from Bombay to the informant’s firm, on the basis of advance payment

made to the present applicant. When the informant enquired about the firm of the present applicant, it was informed to the informant that the present

applicant was carrying out his business along with other partner, namely Vishika @ Vishika Amol Ingeshwar. They are carrying out work under the

name and style of “Vyankatesh Agro Impex Pvt. Limitedâ€. In pursuance of the business, both the partners came to Rudrapur on 05.07.2017 for

the purpose of executing a document with regard to the business. In pursuance of the mutual agreement between the parties, an agreement was

signed. In compliance of the said agreement, the informant made advance payment of Rs. 12.00 lakhs on 07.07.2017 through RTGS to the firm of the

applicant. On receipt of the payment, Pomegranate worth Rs. 10,70,020/- was sent to the informant, whereas Rs.12.00 lakhs was given by the

informant to the firm of the applicant. On 16.08.2017, amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, on 18.08.2017 Rs. 04.00 lakhs, on 07.09.2017 Rs. 1,93,000/-, on

22.09.2017 Rs. 19.00 lakhs, on 25.09.2017 Rs. 10.00 lakhs, on 29.09.2017 Rs. 5,50,000/- through RTGS were transferred by the informant to the

account of the firm of the applicant. The firm of the applicant owed total Rs. 61,72,980/-. The informant requested to send the goods as per

agreement, then the present applicant threatened the informant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Agreement is admitted fact between the parties. It is also admitted that the firm of the present applicant sent Pomegranate worth Rs. 10,70,020/- to

the informant. It is also admitted that the firm of present applicant owed Rs. 61,72,980/-towards informant. However, learned counsel for the applicant

submits that the export quality goods such as pomegranate, lemons, onions, tomato had been provided to the firm of the informant and invoices,

thereafter, had been raised towards the same. “Pragati Foodsâ€, the firm of the informant had in turn even exported the said goods to a Dubai

based company ‘Fresh Carota’. This is also admitted between the parties that the co-accused has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench

of this High Court.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant are conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the State and admits that all the goods

which were requested to send to the firm of the informant, received by the informant’s firm from the firm of the applicant and thereafter the said

goods were exported to Dubai by the firm of the informant.

The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of the bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative

according to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The applicant is in custody since 30.07.2019. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars

for an indefinite period.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the

applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the concerned Court with the condition that the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates the condition imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move the Court for

cancellation of the bail.

It is further clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application are limited to the decision, in the light of the facts, provided by the

parties at this stage, as to whether the bail application should be allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.