Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17650 of 2010 Petitioner :- Deepak Sarraf And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Bhola Nath Singh,Ashish Kumar Gupta Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gopal Misra, learned counsel for
the complainant, learned learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated. He further submits that the
allegation against the applicant is that they have committed the offence of
cheating and forgery by giving synthetic Ruby in place of natural Ruby and
also gave forged and fabricated certificate to this effect and thereby obtained a
huge amount from the complainant illegally and fraudulently. He further
submits that neither the applicants have any concern with the said ruby nor the
alleged certificate was ever given by him to the complainant. He further
submits that only Rs. 1,05,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the
Account of applicant No. 2 for the purpose of purchasing house instead of the
ruby as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the present
prosecution has been launched against the applicant malafide just to harass,
victimise and pressurise him since a civil litigation regarding some property is
already going on between the parties before the court below. The applicants
are in jail since 23.6.2010.
In the last, however, the learned counsel for the applicants, after obtaining
instructions from the applicants, submits that the applicants may be granted
bail subject to the condition that they shall deposit a total sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- with the court below and that may be released in faovur of the
complainant subject to the outcome of the trial.
Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant has no
objection to it provided the bail order may be circumscribed with appropriate
conditions without causing any further prejudice to the cause of the
complainant as the entire amount which is to be recovered from all the
accused is more than Rs. 3 lacs.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contends that in view of the involvement
and the nature of the transaction the court may proceed to impose such
conditions so that the applicant may not even possibly either violate the
provisions of the bail order or may not tamper with the evidence of the trial.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the
submissions raised and the nature of the transactions giving rise to the
prosecution, let the applicants Deepak Sarraf and Smt. Beema Devi involved
in Case Crime No. 154 of 2008, under Sections 420, 463, 467, 468, 471, 504
and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi be enlarged on bail on his
furnishing a personal and two sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned, and further subject to the condition that
he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by way of Bank Draft ( to be prepared in
favour of the complainant) in the Court of the CJM, Varanasi. The amount so
deposited may be released in favour of the complainant on furnishing
adequate security (other than cash or bank guarantee)by the complainant to
the satisfaction of the court concerned . It is made clear that the deposit of the
said money by the applicants will not, in any way, prejudice the right/defence
of the applicants in the trial of the case and the said deposit shall be subject to
the outcome of the trial.
In case of default in complying with the aforementioned undertaking, the
court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 13.7.2010
MLK