Chandra Dhari Singh, JHeard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. According to the prosecution case, one Umar Shaukat is Director (Marketing) and is a trader of Mobile Laptop Software. In view of his business he was having talks on mobile nos.7835868939, 9123396015 and 8276879283. However, the persons who were talking to him disclosed their names as Manish and Amit. On 25.01.2018 at Sector 72 Amit along with three persons namely Guddu, Vicky and Ramesh came and they started discussion about the deal of laptop software accessories. The deal was finalized for Rs.40 lacs and as such he gave Rs.2 lacs cash immediately on the said date with an assurance to give the rest money in three days. However, when the said software was checked by the informant, it was found to be invalid and thereafter when he objected the same, the accused persons said him to come to Noida and they will brief him about the software, at the same time he also asked to bring the rest amount. It is alleged that on 05.02.2018 at 5.30 p.m., he along with his friend Saroj went to Sector 72 and met the accused persons in B-Block. It is alleged that the accused persons snatched the software and also Rs.38 lacs which he was carrying. Thereafter the accused persons fled away from the place of incident threatening him with dire consequences, if the said incident will be reported by him.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. He is innocent person. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He has neither given any software to the informant nor has any dealing about the same. However, the allegation of snatching of the amount, as alleged in the F.I.R. is wholly false. He further submitted that entire prosecution version is doubtful from the fact itself that there is no software which has a value of Rs.40 lacs. The popular and latest software like Windows X pro is easily available in the market for Rs.10,000/- and as such the allegation as contained in the F.I.R. suffers from absurdity inasmuch as the value of the software as alleged in the F.I.R. is beyond imagination.

4. He further submitted that the incident took place on 05.02.2018 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.02.2018 at 10.44 P.M. No explanation has been given in lodging the F.I.R. on the next date of the incident. Alleged recovery of Rs.9,500/- made from the possession of the applicant is totally false. He has no criminal history. Chargesheet has been filed on 31.03.2018.

5. Lastly he submitted that the applicant is in custody since 08.02.2018 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail, if he is released on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after investigation the Investigating Officer has found sufficient material and filed chargesheet against the applicant. Therefore the application has no merit and deserves to be rejected.

7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

8. Let the applicant Mudassir involved in Case Crime No.130 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 392 and 411 IPC, P.S. Sector 49, District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.

4. The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is suspected.

5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

9. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court below would be at liberty to cancel the bail without any reference to this Court.