Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.;- Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. Accused-applicant is involved and detained in Case Crime No. 1341 of 1992, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S.Hazratganj, district Lucknow. Sri Gaurav Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for applicant would submit that FIR was lodged in year 1992 and charge-sheet was submitted in year 2011. Applicant was not named in the FIR. After 19 years, applicant has been arrested. Applicant was merely an authorized signatory on behalf of M/s Manu Agro Pvt. Ltd., 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 Manu Agro Pvt. Ltd. Applicant is neither Director nor promoter nor financer. He was merely authorized to sign on behalf of the company. As such even if Directors of company have committed some wrong, applicant cannot be held responsible. He has referred 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........." Sri Bhatia with great vehemence has 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." He further submits that applicant is in jail since 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 two directors, namely, Sant Kumar, and Chandra Kumar applied for loan of Rs. 90,00000/- from PICUP. They submitted fake papers for obtaining the loan and did not pay the same. Both the directors concealed their identity and applied for loan with false identity and by submitting forged papers. Applicant Sanjay Khera is real brother of Sant Kumar and Chandra Prakash. He too concealed his real identity. He knew that Directors of company are real brothers and knowing fully well about their identity colluded with them in duping PICUP of more than Rs. 125 crores. 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. Real name of Sanjay Khera has been shown somewhere as Sanjay Kumar and somewhere as Sanjay Arora and Rohit Kumar Arora. Initially case was registered on 27.8.1992 against Sant Kumar and Chandra Prakash 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 directors' real name is Jugal Kishore Khera while these two persons represented themselves as Sant Kumar and Chandra Prakash for obtaining loan. Sanjay Khera is real brother of Sant Kumar, as such he was party to the fraud since beginning and he had opened the bank account of the M/s Manu Agro Private Ltd. with Andhra Bank, Branch Karol Bagh, Delhi. The Bank was informed that account of the company will be operated by Sanjay as authorised signatory. Signature of Sanjay was identified by Sant Ram. Thus, in this letter, Sant Kumar authorized Sanjay to operate the bank account. The Bank was informed that account of the company will be operated by Sanjay as authorised signatory. Signature of Sanjay was identified by Sant Ram. Thus, in this letter, Sant Kumar authorized Sanjay to operate the bank account. Sanjay knew that Sant Kumar was not real person. In fact, his actual name was Brij Kishore Khera and he happened to be real brother. Even in bank full name of Sanjay has not been given i.e. Sanjay Khera and Sanjay Arora etc., his parentage or address. Counter-affidavit shows that Sanjay has transacted the business with Andhra Bank in the capacity of authorised signatory and the letter for opening the account contains the signature of Sant Kumar and Sanjay who had opened the account by giving fake identity. Forensic laboratory has confirmed that the signature sent for verification belongs to Sanjay, as such it is clear that Sanjay knows well that his two brothers have obtained loan from PICUP by giving fake identity. 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 nor 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 applicant 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. In Rajasthan, the applicant was in jail with the name of Sanjay Khera alias Sanjay while in Punjab and Maharashtra, he is accused with the name of Rohit Kumar. In Rajasthan, the applicant was in jail with the name of Sanjay Khera alias Sanjay while in Punjab and Maharashtra, he is accused with the name of Rohit Kumar. It is further submitted that applicant has jumped the bail granted by Rajasthan Court. Now warrant has been served upon accused in Lucknow jail. He was also wanted in Mumbai since long time. 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 Arora etc. Sant Kumar is involved in all seven cases. As stated Sant Kumar is the real brother of applicant Sanjay 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 of Sanjay Khera. Cases registered against him 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. So far applicant Sanjay Khera is concerned, he has operated as Sanjay, Vishal Suri, Sanjay Khera and Rohit Kumar. These people have duped not only PICUP but also various corporations of Rajasthan, Delhi and Haryana. 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. Applicant is already involved in six cases, out of which 4 cases are pending in Rajasthan and Mumbai. In Jaipur, Chandigarh and Mumbai, applicant has already jumped bails. As such his release is not at all conducive in the interest of justice. 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. In Jaipur, Chandigarh and Mumbai, applicant has already jumped bails. As such his release is not at all conducive in the interest of justice. 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. Applicant's criminal history, past record and series of crime do not entitle him to bail. Moreover, contention of the State that securing presence of the applicant 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. It has been shown that directors of the company have termed the applicant as authorized signatory, as such it cannot be doubted that applicant was deeply connected with the activities 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. It has been shown that directors of the company have termed the applicant as authorized signatory, as such it cannot be doubted that applicant was deeply connected with the activities 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. 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 in which details of Rohit Kumar (applicant) have been sought. Applicant has obtained bail from Maharashtra in the name of Rohit Kumar as is apparent from the bail order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dated 1.7.2005 and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai dated 18.8.2011. These bail orders have been annexed by the applicant himself with rejoinder-affidavit. Sanjay Khera was released on bail in the name of Rohit Kumar, is evidenced by bail order annexed by applicant itself. It appears that applicant is operating in different names but he was termed as authorized signatory of the company and transacted on behalf of the company as authorized signatory. His signatures have been verified by the Forensic Lab. His real brothers are directors of the company while applicant was authorized signatory, who has duped the PICUP by obtaining loan in the false names by filing forged papers. He had moved Bank for opening the Bank Account in Andhra Bank, in the name of company, launched by his real brothers by concealing their identity, prima facie displays intention to cheat since inception. So far as Section 42 of S.F.C. Act is concerned, suffice to say that applicant is not being prosecuted under the provisions of S.F.C.Act. Similarly, the argument that PICUP can recover its dues from the mortgaged land does not dilute the act done with criminal intention. Applicant is wanted in a number of cases in various States, as such possibility of his absconding is real. Similarly, the argument that PICUP can recover its dues from the mortgaged land does not dilute the act done with criminal intention. Applicant is wanted in a number of cases in various States, as such possibility of his absconding is real. At this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant had no knowledge about the fraud committed by his brothers. Investigating Officer of the case Sri R.K.Swarankar has laboured hard in this case in collecting details, names and addresses of accused persons from various States, especially when the Bank has failed to divulge information under some policy. In these circumstances, I do not think it fit to release the applicant on bail. Prayer for bail is refused.