Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.;- Since both the bail applications arise out of same case crime number, they are being decided by a common order. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. Accused-applicants are involved and detained in Case Crime No. 1340 of 1992, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S.Hazratganj, district Lucknow. Learned counsel appearing for applicant Rajiv Abroal would submit that FIR was lodged in year 1992 and charge-sheet was submitted in year 2011. Applicants were not named in the FIR. After 19 years, applicants have been arrested. Co-accused namely Sant Kumr and Sanjeev Arora are relatives and they have misused the identity of the applicant Rajeev Abroal. There is no evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime as such no criminal liability can be fastened on him. He further submits that Directors of the company took loan from Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. (PICUP) for establishing M/s Hill Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. Applicant is neither Director nor promoter nor financier. Even if Directors of company have committed some wrong, applicants cannot be held responsible. He has referred to a decision of the Apex Court given in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5650 of 2011). particularly relying upon following extracts:- "In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty........." "..........From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test........" "..........This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual......." "..........We are concerned with the penultimate stage and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment........" "A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.........." "It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period........." Learned counsels for applicants with great vehemence have argued that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of NCT of Delhi v. Rajiv Khurana, (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 469 has clearly demarcated the area where criminal liability can be fastened on the Directors and employees of the company. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is being quoted herein below:- "17. The ratio of all these cases is that the complainant is required to state in the complaint how a Director who is sought to be made an accused, was in charge of the business of the company or responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Every Director need not be and is not in charge of the business of the company. If that is the position with regard to a Director, it is needless to emphasize that in the case of non-Director officers, it is all the more necessary to state what were his duties and responsibilities in the conduct of business of the company and how and in what manner he is responsible or liable." They further submit that applicants are in jail since 26th January, 2011 and 2nd February, 2011. The offence is triable by Magistrate I Class. The offence is triable by Magistrate I Class. Learned A.G.A. Sri R.K.Dwivedi opposed the bail assisted by Sri R.K.Swarankar, Superintendent of Police, who is Investigating Officer, EOW, State of U.P. It is submitted on behalf of the State that directors, namely, Sant Kumar, and Sanjeev Arora and Rajiv Abroal applied for loan of Rs. 90,00000/- from PICUP. They submitted fake papers for obtaining the loan and did not pay the same. The directors concealed their identity and applied for loan with false identity and by submitting forged papers. Applicant Sanjeev Arora alias Khera is real brother of Sant Kumar. He too concealed his real identity. Rajiv Abroal knew that Directors of company are real brothers and knowing fully well about their identity colluded with them in duping PICUP. In fact, this very family had applied for loan for seven companies namely, M/s Manu Oils (P) Ltd., M/s Manu Agro (P) Ltd., M/s Perth Oils (P) Ltd., M/s Naini Automobiles (P) Ltd., M/s Hill Automotive Components, M/s Manu Refinery (P) Ltd. and M/s Kanpur Fats (P) Ltd. Initially case was registered on 27.8.1992 against Sant Kumar and applicants under Sections 426, 420 IPC. They could not be arrested as they had given false address. In year 2009, further investigation was conducted by Superintendent of Police under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. During investigation, it was detected that Sant Kumar (real name Brij Kishore Khera) had obtained loan for seven companies in collusion with his relatives and friends. None of the factories were in operation and after obtaining the loan they fled away. Sant Kumar's real name is Brij Kishore Khera, Chandra Prakash another brother's real name is Jugal Kishore Khera. Sanjeev Arora is real brother of Sant Kumar, as such he was party to the fraud since beginning and he had opened the bank account in Union Bank, Delhi. Sanjeev knew that Sant Kumar was not real person. In fact, his actual name was Brij Kishore Khera and he happened to be real brother. Learned A.G.A. submits that it is wrong to say that company was set up and it had reached the stage of production. The company has never made any effort to set up any factory neither any power connection nor working capital was arranged. Nothing has been produced in the company. Certificates of Sri Rakesh Sharma, Chartered Accountant, have been found to be forged. The company has never made any effort to set up any factory neither any power connection nor working capital was arranged. Nothing has been produced in the company. Certificates of Sri Rakesh Sharma, Chartered Accountant, have been found to be forged. These certificates have been used for obtaining the loan from PICUP. Architect Paramjeet Singh and Chartered Accountant both have informed that work relating to Bank was being done by Sri Sanjay Khera while efforts for taking loan were made by his brother Sant Kumar. It is further submitted that co-accused Sanjay Khera has a long criminal history detailed below: (A) Case Crime No. 123 of 1989, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S.Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, State of Rajasthan, (B) Case Crime No. 124 of 1989, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, (C) Case Crime No. 2035 of 1999, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, East Chandigarh, Punjab and (D) Case Crime No. 247 of 2004, under Sections 406, 409, 420/34, Marine Drive, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra. Sri R.K.Swarankar, Superintendent of Police, has brought on record the name of companies who had applied for loan with the current outstanding of Rs. 125,16,43000/- of PICUP. All these loans have been obtained for all these companies by Sant Kumar, Chandra Prakash, S.B.Khanna, Kamlesh Kishore, Sanjay Khera, Sanjeev Arora etc. It is submitted that Sant Kumar is the real brother of applicant Sanjeev Khera. The actual name of Sant Kumar is Brij Kishore Khera but has committed offence in Mumbai and Chandigarh in the name of Avinash Arora and in Jaipur in the name of B.K.Khera. Real name of Chandra Prakash is Jugul Kishore Khera who is also real brother. Cases registered against him are in the name of Rajesh Khera, Manu is son of Jugal Kishore Khera in whose names this group of companies has been launched. Rajiv Abrol is brother-in-law of Jugul Kishore Khera and brother of Smt. Lalita who is wife of Jugal Kishore Khera. Real name of S.B.Khanna is Balram Shah Khera who is real brother of applicant. Kamlesh Khanna's real name is Kamlesh Khera. Learned A.G.A. submitted that with a common intention to cheat various corporations and banks these people have formed the group and obtained loan in fake names by submitting forged papers. Real name of S.B.Khanna is Balram Shah Khera who is real brother of applicant. Kamlesh Khanna's real name is Kamlesh Khera. Learned A.G.A. submitted that with a common intention to cheat various corporations and banks these people have formed the group and obtained loan in fake names by submitting forged papers. Learned A.G.A. has referred paragraphs 16 and 23 of the judgment given in Sanjay Chandra's (supra) case. Relevant extracts are reproduced below:- "16. ...........It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance." "23. ..........While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial........." Sri Dwivedi submits that antecedent of man applying for bail is relevant criteria, as such this Court should also see the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused while considering the prayer for bail. Contention of the State that securing presence of the applicants would be difficult, has also some substance. So far as liability of applicant as employee of the company is concerned, Apex Court has very clearly held that for fastening the criminal liability, it should be shown that accused was incharge and was responsible for conduct of the business of the company. I have carefully gone through the submissions of parties' counsel and perused the record. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. I have carefully gone through the submissions of parties' counsel and perused the record. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India, has sent a letter to S.P., EOW, Lucknow informing that during investigation of M/s AVI group of Companies, it has come to their notice that the promoters of these companies have taken loan from PICUP, Lucknow by flouting various companies known as Manu groups and one of the promoters namely, Rohit Kumar/Rohit Arora is under custody. An information from EOW, U.P. was sought seeking details of the cases. This shows that Ministry of Corporate Affairs is also investigating into the serious fraud committed by various companies. Sanjeev Arora in para 7 of the bail application has stated that he "was neither investor nor financer nor the employee in the said company". Sant Kumar is real brother of applicant Sanjeev Arora and as such he knew that Sant Kumar had applied for loan, while his real name is Brij Kishore Khera. Since he was real brother, it cannot be presumed that he was not aware about his identity. As such prima facie intention to cheat from beginning can be inferred. It has come on record that he had opened the bank account in the name of company in Union Bank of India. He has given his father's name in the bail application as 'Sri J.P.Arora alias Raj Shah Khera' while elsewhere he has given his father's name as 'J.P.Arora'. In these circumstances, his involvement can be safely inferred. It is true that no criminal case is pending against him. Sri Gaurav Bhatia vehemently pleaded for bail on the medical ground. He has referred to the medical report forwarded by the District Jail which shows that applicant is suffering from malignant hypertensive arterial flutter and congestive heart failure. Earlier he had undergone coronary angioplasty and operation of heart valvatomy. His blood sugar is grossly raised. Looking to the ill-health of the applicant and other features, I am inclined to grant bail only on medical ground to facilitate the necessary treatment. So far Rajiv Abroal is concerned, Sri Nadeem Murtaza has pleaded that he is neither director nor financer of the company. He happens to be relative of one of the brothers Sant Kumar and Sant Kumar and his brothers misused his name. So far Rajiv Abroal is concerned, Sri Nadeem Murtaza has pleaded that he is neither director nor financer of the company. He happens to be relative of one of the brothers Sant Kumar and Sant Kumar and his brothers misused his name. He has not signed any paper nor has transacted in any bank nor he is in no way connected with this group who has obtained the loan for seven companies from PICUP. He has imputed his relatives for his involvement. Learned A.G.A. contended that applicant is brother in law of one of the brothers Sant Kumar alias Brij Kishore Khera, as such he knew that these persons have applied for loan with fake identity as such his involvement from beginning cannot be ruled out. Learned A.G.A. concedes that there is nothing to indicate the involvement of Rajiv Abroal. He also concedes that there is no other case pending against Rajiv Abroal but there is possibility of his having signed papers before Registrar (para 15 of counter-affidavit). In the case-diary, statement of Guru Saran Singh Abroal is available. Sri Guru Saran Singh, Notary Advocate, New Delhi Court, Patiala House has stated that he has not verified any affidavit of Rajiv Abroal. This statement was given on the basis of register. Merely on the basis of suspicion, one cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period. As such contention of Sri Nadeem Murtaza has some substance. In view of the above, Court is inclined to grant bail to Rajiv Abroal as well. In view of the above, applicants Sanjeev Arora alias Sanjeev Khera and Rajiv Abroal are directed to be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) Applicants will be released on their executing a personal bond with two local solvent sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned. (b) They shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Investigating Officer. (c)They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear an affidavit. (c)They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear an affidavit. (d) In case the Investigating Officer is able to collect additional material or involvement of applicants in some other scam, State will be free to apply for cancellation of their bail.