IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD
INDEX
IN
SECOND CRL. MISC BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2024
(Under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

DISTRICT: GHAZIABAD

Peetambar Das Maurya ...Applicant

(In Jail Since 21.10.2023)
Versus

State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

S.No. PARTICULARS DATES ANN PAGES

1. Second Bail application under 1-2
section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

2. Affidavit filed in support of

Second Bail Application, under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 alongwith ID proof.

3. The Certified copy of the FIR No. 15.10.2023 1

803/ 2023 dated 15.10.2023 lodged
under Section 147, 323, 504, 506,
342, 386, 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 at Police Station Nandgram,
Ghaziabad.

4. A true copy of the Chargesheet No. 16.12.2023 2

01/ 2023 dated 16.12.2023 filed
against the Applicant for alleged
commission of offence under Section
147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 34 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
alongwith Case Diary.

5. A true copy of the MLC Report dated 15.10.2023 3

15.10.2023 of the Complainant
Shashank Sharma.

6. A true copy of the Recovery Memo 21.10.203 4

dated 21.10.2023.
7. The snapshots of the CCTV footage 14.10.2023 5
of the camera installed at the shop of
the Applicant for the date 14.10.2023.

8. A true copy of the Registration 6

Certificate of the Applicant’s car DL
2C BD 2589.

9. A true copy of the entry register of 7

Jyoti Super Village depicting the
entry of the Applicant’s car DL 2C
BD 2589 at 2:55 PM on 19.10.2023.

10. A true copy of the details of the calls 8

made by the Applicant/ Accused to SI
Mohan Singh on his ph. no.
8929182243.

11. A true copy of the location data 9

extracted from the GPS tracker
installed in the car DL 2C BD 2589 of
the Applicant.

12. A true copy of the call detail of the 19.10.2023 10

call made to 112 police helpline
number by driver Anil Kumar at
10:49 PM on 19.10.2023.

13. The screenshot of the 19.10.2023 11

acknowledgement message received
by driver Anil after calling on 112
police helpline number.

14. A true copy of the RTI Application 01.02.2024 12

having registration no. SSPGA/ R/
2024/ 60072 dated 01.02.2024
preferred by the Applicant through
his counsel.

15. A true copy of the reply to the RTI 17.02.2024 13

Application having registration no.
SSPGA/ R/ 2024/ 60072 received on
17.02.2024.

16. A true copy of the RTI Application 01.02.2024 14

having registration no. SSPGA/ R/
2024/ 60071 dated 01.02.2024
preferred by the Applicant through
his counsel.
 17. A true copy of the reply to the RTI 23.02.2024 15
Application having registration no.
SSPGA/ R/ 2024/ 60071 received on
23.02.2024.

18. A true copy of the Application dated 12.02.2024 16

12.02.2024 preferred by the
Applicant under Section 91 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
before the Ld. Trial Court.

19. A true copy of the Entry and Exit 17

Registers of Jyoti Super Village, Raj
Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad for the
date 14.10.2023.

20. A true copy of the Order dated 19.12.2023 18

19.12.2023 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court in Crl. Misc. Bail
Application No. 49605/ 2023 titled
Peetamber Das Maurya Vs. State of
U.P.

21. A true copy of the Order dated 18.12.2023 19

18.12.2023 passed by this Hon’ble
High Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory
Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No.
13402/ 2023 titled Praveen Tyagi Vs.
State of U.P.

22. A true copy of the Order dated 26.02.2024 20

26.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble
High Court in Crl. Misc. Bail
Application No. 7345/ 2024 titled
Pradeep Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P.
23. A Free copy of the Bail rejection 21.02.2024
Order dated 21.02.2024
24. Declaration
25. Advocate Parcha

(Manu Sharma)
Advocate
Adv. R/No. A/M0377/12
Counsel for the Applicant
Office:- 8, Mahatma Gandhi Marg
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile No: 9532485895
Dated:
Place: Prayagraj
 FIR No. 803/ 2023, U/s 147, 323, 504, 506,
342, 386, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
P.S. Nandgram, District: Ghaziabad

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD
******
SECOND CRL. MISC BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2024
(Under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

DISTRICT: GHAZIABAD

Peetambar Das Maurya

S/o Sh. B.L. Maurya
R/o Flat No. 194, 1st Floor
Pocket-B, Category-3, East of Kailash
South Delhi, Delhi ...Applicant
(In Jail Since 21.10.2023)

Versus
State of U.P.
Through Secretary Home
Secretariat, Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh …Opposite Party

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
his other companion Judges of
the aforesaid Court
The humble application of the applicant
above named most respectfully showeth as under:

1. That the full facts and circumstances of the case have been narrated in

the accompanying affidavit, which form the part of this application.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may

graciously be pleased to allow this Application and enlarge the Applicant on

Bail in FIR No. 803/ 2023 registered under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 342,

386, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Nandgram, Ghaziabad

during the pendency of trial before the Court below, otherwise the Applicant

shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

(Manu Sharma)
Advocate
Adv. R/No. A/M0377/12
Counsel for the Applicant
Office:- 8, Mahatma Gandhi Marg
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile No: 9532485895

Dated:
Place: Prayagraj
 FIR No. 803/ 2023, U/s 147, 323, 504, 506,
342, 386, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
P.S. Nandgram, District: Ghaziabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

***
AFFIDAVIT
IN
SECOND CRL. MISC BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2024
(Under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

DISTRICT: GHAZIABAD

Peetambar Das Maurya

S/o Sh. B.L. Maurya
R/o Flat No. 194, 1st Floor
Pocket-B, Category-3, East of Kailash
South Delhi, Delhi ...Applicant
(In Jail Since 21.10.2023)

Versus
State of U.P.
Through Secretary Home
Secretariat, Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh …Opposite Party

Affidavit of …………………………..,
aged about ……… years, S/o
…………………………..., R/o …………
……………………………………………
Religion: Hindu, Occupation: …………….
I.D. Aadhaar Card No. ……………………
Mobile No.: …………………

(DEPONENT)
To,

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice

and his other companion Judges
of the aforesaid Court.
 The humble application of the above-named
applicant most respectfully showeth:

I, the deponent above-named do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as

under:

1. That the deponent is the ………………. and pairokar of the Applicant

in the present case and as such he is well acquainted with the facts and

circumstances of the present case therefore, competent to swear the

present Affidavit. The Aadhaar Card of the deponent is attached

herewith as his identity proof.

2. That the Applicant has filed the present Application under Section 439

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of Bail in the

case arising from FIR No. 803/ 2023, PS Nandgram, Ghaziabad for

the alleged commission of offence under Section 147, 323, 504, 506,

342, 386, 34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

That the present is the second bail application before this Hon’ble

Court and the Applicant had, before filing of Chargesheet, preferred

first bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 49605 of

2023 before this Hon’ble Court which was dismissed vide Order dated

19.12.2023.

That after Chargesheet was filed and cognizance was take, the

Applicant preferred Second Bail Application No. 862 of 2024 before

 the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 07.02.2024 which

was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2024.

3. That the present First Information Report No. 803 of 2023 dated

15.10.2023 has been lodged at the behest of Shashank Sharma who

alleged that one Vasu Tyagi, Praveen Tyagi, Harshit and 4 other

unknown persons extorted 2.75 crores from him at gun-point by

putting him in fear of death. The complainant has further alleged that

he was beaten for nearly 2 hours by the accused persons demanding

an amount Rupees 6 crores from him and later let him go after they

received an amount of 2.75 crores subject to the condition that he gives

another 25 Lakhs on Monday and 10 lakhs monthly, thereafter.

The Certified copy of the FIR No. 803/ 2023 dated 15.10.2023 lodged

under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 34 of Indian Penal Code,

1860 at Police Station Nandgram, Ghaziabad is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE NO. 1.

4. That the investigation in the matter is complete and the Chargesheet

No. 01/ 2023 dated 16.12.2023 has already been filed against the

Applicant for the alleged commission of offence punishable under

Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 34, 120B of Indian Penal Code,

1860

A true copy of the Chargesheet No. 01/ 2023 dated 16.12.2023 filed

under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 34, 120B of Indian Penal
 Code, 1860 alongwith Case Diary is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE NO. 2.

5. That at the outset, it is stated that the Applicant has been falsely

implicated in the present matter by the police by fabricating evidence

and concocting false events against the Applicant. The Applicant had

no role whatsoever, in the alleged commission of crime and there is

no independent evidence/ witness in the present matter to substantiate

the frivolous allegations levelled against the Applicant.

It is submitted that for the efficacious disposal of the present bail

application, the facts of the present case are narrated hereinafter in two

parts, one being the Prosecution’s version and the other being the

Applicant’s version.

6. FACTS OF THE CASE – PROSECUTION’S VERSION:

6.1 Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant Tyagi (co-accused) called the Complainant on

his phone number 7617777716 from the number 9760595888 several

times requesting him to come to Ghaziabad on the pretext of showing

him some property.

6.2 On 14.10.2023, upon the repeated requests of Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant

Tyagi, the complainant agreed to come to Ghaziabad on which the

Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant Tyagi shared the location of Jyoti Super Village,

Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad.

 It is pertinent that from the CCTV footage collected by the IO from

the incident site, (CD-32) one car bearing registration no.

UP11AY7576 can be seen entering the society at 02:16 PM however,

neither the Applicant nor his car bearing registration no. DL 2C BD

2589 can be seen in the said CCTV footage.

6.3 That the Complainant and his driver left from Delhi and reached the

location shared by Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant Tyagi i.e. Jyoti Super Village,

Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad in his car DL 4C BC 1637 and on

reaching the location he was once again asked to come to Flat No. F

61 SF by Ishant Tyagi @ Vasu Tyagi.

It is pertinent to mention here that neither the Complainant nor his car,

Hyundai Verna bearing registration no. DL 4C BC 1637, can be seen

in the CCTV footage collected by the IO. It is further pertinent to

mention here that the mobile tower locations/ CDR was also not

collected by the IO from which it could be ascertained that the

Complainant even visited the incident site.

6.4 That the Complainant has alleged that as soon as he entered the flat,

he met Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant Tyagi and then five (5) other unknown

persons tied his hands and mouth, threatening him with pistos and

country-made gun to give 6 Crores.

6.5 The Complainant was beaten by all six persons for 2 hours and then

later requested Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant Tyagi to let him talk to one

Manoj Sharma and Sunny who can lend him some money as they are
 in the business of giving money on loan.

6.6 That the Complainant then called called Sunny on his phone number

9891400021 and Manoj Sharma on his phone number 9810895397

who agreed to give an amount of rupees 1.75 crores and 1 crores

respectively to the complainant.

6.7 Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant Tyagi then directed the complainant that his

associate, one Harshit (co-accused), will collect the said amount of

2.75 crores from Sunny and Manoj Sharma and gave the phone

number 7065206560 of Harshit, asking the complainant to share it

with Manoj Sharma and Sunny.

It is important to mention here that no CDR/ Cell Tower Locations of

the Complainant OR Harshit OR Manoj Sharma OR Sunny have been

collected by the Investigating Officer to ascertain the allegations

levelled by the Complainant.

6.8 That Harshit (co-accused) then collected rupees 1 crore from the office

of Manoj Sharma located at Anand Parbat, Delhi on 14.10.23 at

around 05:00 PM – 06:00 PM and an amount of rupees 1.75 crores

from the office of Sunny located at Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh, Delhi

at around 07:00 PM – 07:30 PM.

6.9 That Harshit (co-accused), on the directions of Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant

Tyagi, then took the money to Burari, Delhi where it was kept at the

house of Pradeep Singh Negi (co-accused).

6.10 That Vasu Tyagi @ Ishant Tyagi then demanded the remaining

amount on which the Complainant stated that he does not have more

money however, he was allowed to leave subject to the condition that

he gives another 25 Lakhs on Monday and 10 lakhs monthly,

thereafter.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Complainant could neither be

seen leaving the society, Jyoti Super Village in the CCTV footage

collected by the Investigating Officer nor his car details can be seen

in the Exit Register maintained at the society.

6.11 That on 15.10.2023, the FIR was lodged at PS Nandgram under

Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 34 IPC against Vasu Tyagi,

Praveen, Harshit and 5 unknown persons and the Complainant’s

medical examination was conducted where two simple injuries, one

Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm on back of elbow and one Abrasion 0.5 cm

x 0.2 cm on left forearm lower part, were seen. It is worth-while to

mention here that even though the Complainant was continuously

beaten for more than 2 hours, he suffered only 2 small abrasions and

did not suffer any serious injury which could correspond to an assault

of more than 2 hours.

A true copy of the MLC Report dated 15.10.2023 of the Complainant

Shashank Sharma is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE

No. 3.

6.12 That during the course of investigation, it came to light that Vasu @

Ishant Tyagi surrendered in Dehradun District Court in relation to FIR

 No. 72/ 2022, PS Nehru Colony, Dehradun registered under Section

307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is incarcerated in

Dehradun District Jail, Dehradun.

6.13 That on 21.10.23, the Applicant was allegedly arrested while

travelling in a Scorpio car bearing no. UP 11 AY 7576 alongwith other

co-accused persons Nishant Tyagi, Shilpa, Tyagi, Harshit Kumar,

Kartik @ Monti, Pradeep Singh Negi and an amount of Rupees 25

Lakhs was recovered from co-accused Shilpa Tyagi.

The said story of the prosecution is highly unbelievable as neither

there are any independent witnesses who can affirm that the Applicant

was arrested on 21.10.2023 nor any videography has been done for

the arrest of the Applicant or the recovery of rupees 25 Lakh.

A true copy of the Recovery Memo dated 21.10.2023 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 4.

6.14 That co-accused, Shilpa Tyagi, then disclosed out that an amount of

rupees 2 crores is kept with co-accused Nimish at his residence in

Modinagar, Ghaziabad and subsequently co-accused Nimish was

arrested from his residence in Modinagar, Ghaziabad and the amount

of INR 2 Crores was recovered on 21.10.2023.

6.15 That the second statement of the Complainant was recorded under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 30.10.2023

however, no test identification parade was conducted to ascertain if

 the Complainant could identify the Applicant and confirm his

presence on the day of the incident i.e. 14.10.2023.

6.16 That Chargesheet No. 01 dated 16.12.2023 was filed against the

accused persons including the Applicant for the alleged commission

of offences punishable under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386,

34, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7. FACTS OF THE CASE - APPLICANT’S VERSION:

7.1 That the Applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi and runs a

business/ shop in the Lajpat Nagar area of Delhi. Furthermore, the

place of incident is a tenanted premises owned by the Applicant and

being admittedly used by the co-accused Praveen Tyagi.

7.2 That the Applicant on the day of the incident i.e. 14.10.2023 was at

his shop in Lajpat Nagar, Delhi which fact can also be ascertained

from the CCTV footage of the shop. Furthermore, the Applicant is

nowhere to be seen in the CCTV footage of dated 14.10.2023

collected by the IO from the society Jyoti Super Village, Rajnagar

Extension, Ghaziabad.

The snapshots of the CCTV footage of the camera installed at the shop

of the Applicant for the date 14.10.2023 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE No. 5.

7.3 That the Applicant on 16.10.2023 at 05:12 PM received a call from

the phone number 8929182243 and the caller identified himself as

Mohan Singh, Sub-Inspector, UP Police from Raj Nagar Extension

 Police Chowki, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad. The Applicant/

Accused was informed that some law-and-order situation has arisen in

relation to his flat no. 61 SF located at Jyoti Super Village, Raj Nagar

Extension, Ghaziabad and he should come to Raj Nagar Extension

Police Chowki, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad on which the

Applicant/ Accused informed him that he will come after 2 – 3 days.

7.4 That the Applicant after the said call tried to call his tenant Praveen

Tyagi several times but was unable to contact him as his phone was

switched-off.

7.5 That the Applicant on 19.10.2023 left for Ghaziabad in his car bearing

no. DL 2C BD 2589 with his driver at around 1:30 PM – 2 PM and

first went to his flat no. 61 FS, Jyoti Super Village, Ghaziabad where

he found that his flat is locked and thereafter, the Applicant went to

the club/ maintenance department to meet the society manager

Dinanath Gautam to enquire about the situation who then informed

about the Applicant/ Accused about the incident.

A true copy of the Registration Certificate of the Applicant’s car DL

2C BD 2589 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 6.

A true copy of the entry register of Jyoti Super Village depicting the

entry of the Applicant’s car DL 2C BD 2589 at 2:55 PM on 19.10.2023

is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 7.

7.6 That the Applicant then left for Raj Nagar Extension Police Chowki

to meet SI Mohan Singh as per his directions. The Applicant upon

 reaching the police chowki called SI Mohan Singh on his ph. no.

8929182243 first from the number 9278861375 and later from his

number 9711944425 informing him that he has reached the police

station.

A true copy of the details of the calls made by the Applicant/ Accused

to SI Mohan Singh on his ph. no. 8929182243 is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE No. 8.

7.7 That the Applicant was then made to wait for more than 3 hours after

which SI Mohan Singh came and took the Applicant to Nandgram

Police Station on the pretext of recording his statement. It is pertinent

to mention here that the Applicant’s driver Anil Kumar was made to

wait at Raj Nagar Extension Police Chowki and was assured that the

Applicant will be coming back in an hour’s time.

The afore-mentioned facts can also be ascertained from the data

extracted from the GPS Tracker installed in the Applicant’s car.

A true copy of the location data extracted from the GPS tracker

installed in the car DL 2C BD 2589 of the Applicant is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 9.

7.8 That several hours passed and the Applicant did not return, the driver

Anil Kumar being perplexed by the fact that the Applicant did not

return, his phone was switched-off and the police staff at Rajnagar

Extension Chowki refused to inform him about the applicant’s

whereabouts called Police Helpline number 112 from his phone

number 9205233675 at 10:49 PM and complained about the situation

 after which the driver Anil received an acknowledgement message at

11:03 PM having no. P19102313417 wherein the vehicle number

UP32DG4756 and phone number 7311154756 was provided.

A true copy of the call detail of the call made to 112 police helpline

number by driver Anil Kumar at 10:49 PM on 19.10.2023 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 10.

The screenshot of the acknowledgement message received by driver

Anil after calling on 112 police helpline number is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE No. 11.

7.9 That a police officer in response to the 112 call reached the Raj Nagar

Extension Police Chowki and after enquiring about the situation from

the police staff of Rajnagar Extension Police Chowki informed driver

Anil Kumar that the Applicant has been taken to Nandgram Police

Station, Ghaziabad and took then took the Applicant to Nandgram

Police Station.

The afore-said facts can be ascertained from the Action Taken Report

for 112 event no. P19102313417 received as RTI Reply received in

response to the RTI Application No. SSPGA/ R/ 2024/ 60072 dated

01.02.2024 preferred by the Applicant through his counsel.

A true copy of the RTI Application having registration no. SSPGA/

R/ 2024/ 60072 dated 01.02.2024 preferred by the Applicant through

his counsel is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 12.

 A true copy of the reply to the RTI Application having registration no.

SSPGA/ R/ 2024/ 60072 received on 17.02.2024 is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE No. 13.

7.10 That the family members of the Applicant then reached Nandgram

Police Station at around 12 AM where they were informed that the

Applicant/ Accused has been arrested in relation to FIR No. 803/ 2023

for the alleged commission of offences under Section 147, 323, 504,

506, 342, 386, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It is pertinent to mention here that the family members of the

Applicant/ Accused demanded the Arrest Memo of the Applicant and

the copy of the FIR however, they were informed that they can collect

the same tomorrow i.e. on 20.10.2023. The family members of the

Applicant again on 20.10.2023 went to the police station requesting to

provide the arrest memo of the Applicant alongwith the copy of the

FIR but they were informed that the concerned officials dealing with

the case are on VIP duty as the Hon’ble Prime Minister and Chief

Minister have come to Ghaziabad to inaugurate Regional Rapid Rail

Transit System (RRTS) and they should come back tomorrow i.e. on

21.10.2023. On 21.10.2023 when the family members of the

Applicant/ Accused reached the Nandgram police station, they were

informed that the Applicant/ Accused has been taken for a press

conference and later came to know that the Applicant/ Accused has

been falsely shown to be arrested on 21.10.2023 in a Scorpio Car

UP11AY7576 alongwith other co-accused persons.

 It is further pertinent to mention here that the fact of arrest of the

Applicant on 19.10.2023 can be ascertained from the CCTV footage

of the cameras installed in the Nandgram police station and more

particularly from the camera installed infront of the lock-up cell.

The Applicant had preferred an RTI Application dated 01.02.204

having registration no. SSPGA/ R/ 2024/ 60071 seeking copy of the

video footage of all the cameras installed at Nandgram Police Station

from 15.10.2023 (12:00 AM) to 21.10.2023 (11:59 PM) however, the

said copy of video footage of CCTV cameras installed at Nandgram

police station was denied vide reply to the said RTI Application

received by the Applicant on 23.02.2024.

A true copy of the RTI Application having registration no. SSPGA/

R/ 2024/ 60071 dated 01.02.2024 preferred by the Applicant through

his counsel is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 14.

A true copy of the reply to the RTI Application having registration no.

SSPGA/ R/ 2024/ 60071 received on 23.02.2024 is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE No. 15.

7.11 That the Applicant has also preferred an application under Section 91

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dated 12.02.2024 before the

Ld. Trial Court praying that the following documents be summoned:

a. CDR and Cell Tower Locations of the phone numbers,

9278861375 and 9711944425, belonging to the Applicant;

b. CCTV footage of Nandgram Police Station from 15.10.2023

(12:00 AM) to 21.10.2023 (11:59 PM);
 c. Entry and Exit Registers maintained at the society, Jyoti Super
Village, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad;

d. Complete CCTV Footage of the society, Jyoti Super Village, Raj

Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad from 14.10.2023 (12:00 PM) to
19.10.2023 (06:00 PM);

e. CDR and Cell Tower Locations of the phone number, 9205233675,

belonging to the Applicant’s driver Anil;

f. All records/ details pertaining to 112 Event No. P19102313417

dated 19.10.2023;

g. CDR and Cell Tower Locations of the 8929182243 belonging to

one Sub-Inspector, Mohan Singh;

h. CDR and Cell Tower Locations of all the police personnel

allegedly involved in the arrest of the Applicant on 21.10.2023;

A true copy of the Application dated 12.02.2024 preferred by the

Applicant under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

before the Ld. Trial Court is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE No. 16.

8. That the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter as

he was not present at the place of the incident on 14.10.2023 but was

present at his shop located in Lajpat Nagar, Delhi which is evident

from the following facts:

- The The Applicant/ Accused cannot be seen in the CCTV footage

of the cameras installed at Jyoti Super Village collected by the IO.

- The Applicant/ Accused was present at his shop and the same can

be seen in the CCTV footage (snapshots of CCTV footage annexed

 as Annexure No. 5).

- The Complainant has not identified the Applicant/ Accused to be

present at the scene of incident and no Test Identification Parade

was conducted.

- No entry of the Applicant/ Accused entering or leaving the society

on 14.10.2023 as evident from the Entry and Exit registers

maintained at Jyoti Super Village, Raj Nagar Extension,

Ghaziabad.

A true copy of the Entry and Exit Registers of Jyoti Super Village, Raj

Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad for the date 14.10.2023 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 17.

9. That the Applicant/ Accused voluntarily went to Rajnagar Police

Chowki on the directions of Sub-Inspector Mohan Singh and it is not

possible by the farthest stretch of imagination that a person accused of

extorting 2.75 crores on his own volition goes to a police station. The

details of the calls between the Applicant and Sub-Inspector Mohan

Singh has already been annexed as Annexure No. 8.

10. That the Applicant was arrested on 19.10.2023 and not on 21.10.2023

alongwith other co-accused person which fact can also be ascertained

from the CCTV footage of the cameras installed at Nandgram Police

Station.
11. That the Prosecution’s story is a farce, concocted and fabricated as

neither there are any independent witnesses for the recoveries made

by the police nor any videography has been done.

12. That no evidence has been collected or placed on record from which

it could be ascertained that any such incident ever transpired with the

Complainant and the prosecution’s story is highly improbable as:

- No call details nor CDR of the Complainant or Vasu @ Ishant

Tyagi has been placed on record.

- The Complainant cannot be seen in the CCTV footage of the

society on the day of the incident i.e. on 14.10.2023.

- No record of the Complainant’s entry or exit on 14.10.2023 in the

registers maintained at the society.

- No call details/ CDR of the Complainant, Harshit, Sunny and

Manoj Sharma has been placed on record.

13. That no evidence has been placed on record on how the large sum of

INR 2.75 Crores was arranged in such a short period of time.

Furthermore, no evidence in the form of CCTV footage, telephonic

recordings, call details, CDR, cell-tower locations has been placed on

record from which it could be ascertained that the said amount was

handed over to any of the co-accused persons.

14. That the first bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.

49605/ 2023 was preferred by the Applicant before this Hon’ble High
 Court before filing of Chargesheet in the matter and the same was

dismissed vide Order dated 19.12.2023. It is submitted that the

Chargesheet in the matter was filed, and cognizance was taken by the

Ld. Trial Court on 20.12.2023.

A true copy of the Order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 49605/ 2023 titled Peetamber

Das Maurya Vs. State of U.P. is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE No. 18.

15. That the Applicant has been in custody for more than 4 months and

the investigation in the matter vis-à-vis the Applicant is complete and

Chargesheet No. 01 dated 16.12.2023 has already been filed.

Furthermore, no purpose would be served in keeping the Applicant/

Accused behind bars any further.

16. That the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and has deep roots in

the society.

17. That the Applicant did not even attempt to hamper the investigation in

any manner, whatsoever. Furthermore, no attempts were ever made to

dissuade the witnesses in any manner.

18. That the co-accused Praveen Tyagi, tenant of the Applicant and

resident of the flat where the incident took place, has already been

granted Anticipatory Bail by this Hon’ble High Court vide Order

dated 18.12.2023 in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438

CrPC No. 13402/ 2023.

 A true copy of the Order dated 18.12.2023 passed by this Hon’ble

High Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC

No. 13402/ 2023 titled Praveen Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 19.

19. That the co-accused Pradeep Singh Negi, whose role is similarly

placed as with the Applicant, has been granted bail by this Hon’ble

High Court vide Order dated 26.02.2024 in Crl. Misc. Bail

Application No. 7345/ 2024.

A true copy of the Order dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble

High Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 7345/ 2024 titled

Pradeep Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE No. 20.

20. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the matter of Sanjay Chandra

Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that “Bail is a rule and Jail is an

Exception”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that:

“It is not in the interest of justice the accused should be in

jail for indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged
against the appellant is of serious one in terms of alleged
huge loss to the state exchequer, that, by itself, should not
deter us enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no
serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if
released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper
with the evidence”.

21. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipak Subhashchadra Mehta Vs

Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 4 SCC 134 has held:

 “When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody
to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is
violated. When there is a delay in the trial, bail should be
granted to the accused.”

22. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dataram Singh Vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22 has held as under:

“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the

presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there
are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has
been placed on an accused with regard to some specific
offences but that is another matter and does not detract from
the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet
another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that
the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in
jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever
expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have
been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons
are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not
do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely

the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so,
the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by
a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by
every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a
necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused
person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the
circumstances of a case.

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be

considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best
opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence
witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it
necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations,
a strong case should be made out for placing that person in
judicial custody after a charge-sheet is filed. Similarly, it is
important to ascertain whether the accused was
participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the
 investigating officer and was not absconding or not
appearing when required by the investigating officer.
Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating
officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear
of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would
need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary
for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time
offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the
nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The
poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also
an extremely important factor and even Parliament has
taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section
436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally
soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament
by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

5. To put is shortly, a humane attitude is required to be

adopted by a judge, while dealing with and application for
remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody
or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this
including maintaining the dignity of an accused person,
howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of
Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is
enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and
other problems as noticed by this Court in Re-Inhuman
Conditions in 1382 Prison (2017) 10 SCC 658.”

23. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia

Vs State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 1632] and in the case of Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694]

discussed the provisions of bail / anticipatory bail in light of right to

personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution and held

that Court dealing with a bail application should be satisfied that it is

necessary to keep an accused behind bars for ensuring his presence

during trial before refusing him bail and when this condition is absent,

the right of the accused to liberty shall not be put on peril.

24. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis

Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 held as under:

“9. ...It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the

factors to be borne in mind while considering an application
or bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to

believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if

released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of

the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being

influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of

bail.

25. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs.

Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 laid down the factors that must

guide the exercise of the powers to grant bail in the following terms:

“3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but,

however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft
of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to
record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the
contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court
and facts, however, do always vary from case to case...The
nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for
the grant of bail — more heinous is the crime, the greater is
the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however,
dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.

4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be

attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed
at this juncture, though however, the same are only
illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The
considerations being:

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only
the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being

tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat
for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the
matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence

establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction
of the court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and

it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail”
26. That it is settled law that no person can been subjected to pre-trial

punishment keeping the Accused behind bars during the course of

trial.

27. That the applicant shall abide by all conditions expressed by this

Hon'ble Court while granting bail. The Applicant has cooperated and

shall further assist the prosecution. Furthermore, the Applicant will

not misuse the liberty of this Hon'ble Court if he is released on bail by

this Hon'ble Court.

That in view of the facts stated above, it is expedient and necessary in

the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may most graciously be

pleased to enlarge the Applicant on bail in FIR No. 803 of 2023, Police

Station Nandgram, Ghaziabad for the alleged commission of offence

under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 during the pendency of the trial in the court below.

I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and

verify that the contents of paragraph nos. 1 to 5 of the affidavit are

true to my personal knowledge, and those of paragraph nos 6.1 to 6.16

and 7.1. to 7.11 of the affidavit are based on perusal or records, and

those of paragraph no. 8 to 26 of the affidavit are based on legal advice

which I all believe to be true and no part of it is false and nothing

material has been concealed.

SO HELP ME GOD.

(DEPONENT)
 I, Manu Sharma Advocate, High court, Allahabad do hereby declare

that person making this affidavit and alleging himself to be the

deponent is the same person, known to me from the perusal of papers

in his possession and I have satisfied myself that he is the same person.

Manu Sharma, Advocate

Adv. R/No. A/M0377/12

Solemnly affirmed before me on this …… day of February 2024 at about

…….. A.M / PM the deponent who has been identified by the aforesaid clerk.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he has fully

understood the contents of this affidavit, which have been read over and

explained to him.

Oath Commissioner