Krishan Pahal,J.

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0703 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant is an employee in the company and had resigned from the said post two years prior to the institution of the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued in the similar case instituted pertaining to the same company, the applicant has been enlarged on bail in fourteen cases. In all thirty eight cases have been instituted against the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.01.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

5. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 [LQ/SC/2018/152] and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

6. Let the applicant- Manish Kumar Srivastava, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

8. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.