Satendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Satendra Kumar. The Court considered the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, and the nature of supporting evidence. While not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found that a case for granting bail during the trial was made out. The reasoning appears to be influenced by the fact that a co-accused with similar accusations had already been granted bail and the applicant's contention that there was no independent evidence against him beyond the confession of co-accused. The Court directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not indulging in criminal activity, not pressuring witnesses, and appearing regularly for trial. The Court also stated that if any condition is breached, the bail could be cancelled.

Facts

The applicant, Satendra Kumar, is seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1209 of 2018, under Sections 420, 466, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 132 of the CGST Act. The case involves allegations of fraud and tax evasion through a non-existent firm, N K Industries. The prosecution's case is based on the interception of four individuals and their subsequent confessions regarding fraudulent enterprises and tax evasion. The applicant contends he is innocent, falsely implicated, and has no connection to the alleged firm. He highlights that a co-accused, Nitin Bansal, with similar accusations, has already been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1209 of 2018, under Sections 420, 466, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132 of the CGST Act, considering the allegations of fraud and tax evasion? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argues that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He claims no evidence exists against him, except for the confession of co-accused, and he has no connection to the firm N.K. Enterprises. He further points out that a co-accused, Nitin Bansal, facing similar accusations, has been granted bail by another bench. Revenue's Arguments: The State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that bail had been granted to the co-accused.