JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and Ms. Ashmita Singh, who has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the informant/complainant. 2. Sri Rishad Murtaza, has submitted that the present applicant is in jail since 30.10.2022 in case Crime No. 310 of 2022 u/s 342, 386, 504, 506, 411, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Indira Nagar, District Lucknow and also in added section i.e. Section 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has further submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R. 3. Attention has been drawn towards impugned F.I.R. which initially registered under Section 342, 386, 504, 506 and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of investigation by the investigating agency i.e. STF (at that point of time) Section 411, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. have been added. Recently, section 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act have also been added. 4. Sri Rishad Murtaza, has stated that at the time of lodging F.I.R. the informant/complainant could have levelled allegation against the present applicant and co-accused Mr Vinay Pathak, under those sections which have been added subsequently but since the allegation of F.I.R. were false and misconceived at the very inception, therefore, the allegation relating to the subsequent section i.e. section 411,409,420,468,471 I.P.C. have not been levelled against the present applicant. During the course of the investigation one person in the name of Sri Ajay Jain has been arrested in the present crime case. Since the informant/complainant was having business relation with Sri Ajay Jain and on account of the alleged fraudulent act of the informant one F.I.R. bearing No 0778 of 2022 u/s 420 and 406, P.S:-Neemrana, District Bhiwadi, Rajasthan has been lodged by the brother of Sri Ajay Jain against the informant/complainant (Annexure No.9). 5. Sri Rishad Murtaza, has stated that the informant/complainant has not disclosed the reason of inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. as the informant could have lodged his F.I.R. in the month of February, 2022 when the accused person has asked him for commission for making payment of the bill of the informant/complainant. 5. Sri Rishad Murtaza, has stated that the informant/complainant has not disclosed the reason of inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. as the informant could have lodged his F.I.R. in the month of February, 2022 when the accused person has asked him for commission for making payment of the bill of the informant/complainant. Further, in the month of April, 2022 when the accused persons have allegedly again asked for commission for subsequent bills and the informant has allegedly made the payment of such commission on 29.04.2022 but no F.I.R. has been lodged. Further, in the month of September, 2022 when the accused persons have allegedly demanded commission for making payment of his subsequent bills. As per F.I.R., the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged when the accused no. 1 Sri Vinay Pathak has allegedly threatened the informant to make payment of commission of his bill which has to be paid otherwise the work contract shall be given to the firm of the present applicant, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.10.2022. At this stage Sri Rishad Murtaza, has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No. S.A. 1 of the supplementary affidavit which has Work Order being given to the firm of the present applicant on 15.09.2022. Therefore, he has submitted that if the Work Order has already been given to the firm of the applicant on 15.09.2022, there was no occasion or the reason for the informant/complainant to make payment of commission to the Vice Chancellor of the University through the present applicant in the month of October, 2022. 6. As per Sri Murtaza, the unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. does not only vitiates the allegations but also it is violative of section 8 of the P.C. Act, 1988 which mandates that the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage. 7. Sri Rishad Murtaza has drawn attention by this court towards counter affidavit filed on behalf of the earlier investigating agency showing the statement of the informant/complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his statement the informant/complainant has not supported the prosecution version properly as he has twisted the story as per his convenience. 8. 7. Sri Rishad Murtaza has drawn attention by this court towards counter affidavit filed on behalf of the earlier investigating agency showing the statement of the informant/complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his statement the informant/complainant has not supported the prosecution version properly as he has twisted the story as per his convenience. 8. Sri Rishad Murtaza has drawn attention of this court towards Para 19 of the rejoinder affidavit herein he has explained all the impugned transactions by means of chart to show the Court that all the allegations of the impugned F.I.R. are false and misconceived. For the convenience para 19 of the rejoinder affidavit is being reproduced herein below: "19. That the contents of paragraph 25 of the Counter Affidavit are false, fabricated, misleading, misconceived and baseless in nature, hence denied and in reply thereof it is respectfully submitted that it is an admitted version of the complainant in the F.I.R. that he had to pay the commission amount after his bills were already cleared which is improbable and absurd in nature. The alleged transactions are produced in the table below which shows in abundant clarity the discrepancies in the version of the informant and also the absurdity in the allegations as the complainant has never paid the exact 15 percent as alleged commission but has paid more than that which is absurdly inclusive of future tax liabilities. Out of the three transactions, two are in cash which are un-supported by any evidence and the one account transfer in IBF is actually owed this much of money to I.B.F. which he paid and the subsequent story that it was Rs. 63 Lakhs demanded by co-accused Vinay Pathak in the account of I.B.F. is an unbelievable story. The F.I.R. lodged at district Neemrana and Agra would look into this aspect and collect evidence and if the version of Mr. Sanjay Jain is found to be true, then the present F.I.R. would be proved to be nothing but a false story full of misleading facts and lies in order to wreak personal vengeance. Date Bill amount which was cleared 15 percent of the bill amount Amount alleged to have been demanded Amount allegedly paid by the paid by the First Informant Mode of payment 24.02.2022 Rs. 2,52,72,287/- Rs.37,90,843/- Rs.33,00,000/- Rs. Date Bill amount which was cleared 15 percent of the bill amount Amount alleged to have been demanded Amount allegedly paid by the paid by the First Informant Mode of payment 24.02.2022 Rs. 2,52,72,287/- Rs.37,90,843/- Rs.33,00,000/- Rs. 30 lacs first and Rs.3 lacs Total 33 lacs Cash No date mentioned , no evidence of any cash transactio n 29.04.2022 Rs.4,45,11,127/- Rs.66,76,669/- Rs.73 lacs it is alleged that he was asked Rs.63 lacs in IBF A/c and Rs. 10 lacs cash Rs.51,62,500 /- Rs.11,80,000/ - Rs.10,98,875 /- All transferred in the IBF A/ c Total-Rs.74,41,375 /- A/c transfer This amount has been actually owned by the Informant to Mr. Ajay Jain and the same is in dispute and as such the F.I.R. has been registered in both Agra and Neemrana District 01.09.2022 Rs.2,58,84,002/-(161 statement) Rs.2,19,00,000/-(F.I.R.) Rs.38,82,300/-Rs.32,85,00/- Rs.20 lacs in cash Rs.15,50,000 /- in cash Total paid Rs.35,50,000 /- Cash No date mentioned , no evidence of any cash transaction 9. Further, attention has been drawn towards R.A.2 which has graphical representation of the transactions as per the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant whereby, Sri Rishad Murtaza has tried to convince that the entire prosecution story is false and misconceived. The role of the present applicant in all the three transactions is not direct but he has been indirectly implicated. 10. Sri Murtaza has stated that the applicant is one of the Director of XLICT Software Private Limited, a company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Kanpur in the year 2010. The company of the applicant conducts online offline examination of various universities and also in the business of confidential printing of examination papers. The applicant's company bids for the tender of the various universities to conduct their examinations and the applicant used to meet the office bearer of various universities as the Director of the XLICT Software Private Limited. As a matter of fact the relationship between the applicant and the co-accused was strictly professional and nothing more. The company of the complainant namely, Digitext Technologies (India) Private Limited is also in the business of conducting examination of various universities and ancillary works related to them. 11. As a matter of fact the relationship between the applicant and the co-accused was strictly professional and nothing more. The company of the complainant namely, Digitext Technologies (India) Private Limited is also in the business of conducting examination of various universities and ancillary works related to them. 11. It has been further submitted that initially the investigation was being conducted by the S.T.F and when it was at the verge of completion, the same has been handed over to the C.B.I. He has further submitted that the main accused against whom the main allegation has been levelled has yet not been taken into custody either by the STF or by the C.B.I. All the allegations, so levelled against the present applicant could have been verified and ascertained only when the accused no.1 Sri Vinay Pathak would be interrogated. Sri Rishad Murtaza has explained the prior criminal history of the present applicant in Para 60 of the bail application. 12. Sri Rishad Murtaza has referred Para 102 of the dictum of Apex Court in the State of Haryana and others vs. Sri Bhajan Lal & others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 by submitting that the allegations of the F.I.R. have been shifted by the informant while recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the reason of lodging F.I.R. that if the informant does not make payment of commission to Sri Vinay Pathak, the main accused, the work contract would be given to the firm of the applicant, whereas the same has been given before lodging such F.I.R., way back on 15.09.2022. Therefore, this is a case which prima-facie appears to be false and misconceived so far as the present applicant is concerned, hence he may be enlarged on bail. 13. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the investigation being carried out by the C.B.I. and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted. 14. 13. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the investigation being carried out by the C.B.I. and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted. 14. Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, has submitted that, however, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the present applicant but since the matter has been transferred to the C.B.I, therefore, he has nothing to say. 15. Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the C.B.I has stated that the C.B.I has registered the F.I.R. on 07.01.2023, therefore, till completion of the investigation of the C.B.I the present applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 16. Without entering on the merits of the issue; considering the argument of the learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R.; the statements of the informant/complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; the fact that the work order in question has already been given to the firm of the present applicant on 15.09.2022 but the informant/complainant in the impugned F.I.R. has stated on 29.10.2022, while lodging F.I.R. that on the basis of threatening being given by Sri Vinay Pathak the work contract has been given to the firm of the present applicant; all the three transactions have been explained by the applicant, however, such explanations shall be tested by the C.B.I. during the course of investigation; the person against whom the main allegations have been levelled has not been taken into custody either by the earlier agency or by the C.B.I. till date and the allegations, so levelled against the present applicant are dependent upon the interrogation of the accused no. 1 as the present applicant is running his firm without any complaint from any person or agency; factum of inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging impugned F.I.R. inasmuch the F.I.R. could have been lodged firstly in the month of February / March, 2022, again on or after April, 2022 and lastly immediately after 1.9.2022 when the alleged third transaction completed but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.10.2022; when the investigation by the earlier agency was about to complete the investigation has been transferred to another agency, which is already under huge pressure and doing investigations in so many serious issues of country; in the given circumstances It is not clear as to what time would be consumed by the new agency in completing the investigation; the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation and lastly in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Data Ram Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3) SCC 2, to the effect that bail is a right, jail is an exception, I find it appropriate that the present applicant is entitled to bail 17. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant Ajay Mishra, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) It is directed that as soon as the present applicant is released from jail he shall immediately appear before the investigating officer of the present investigating agency, i.e. C.B.I. within a week for the purposes of cooperation in the investigation. He shall further cooperate in the investigation and shall abide by all the directions of the investigating officer relating to the investigation. If the present applicant does not cooperate in the investigation properly or flout any of the conditions of this order, the investigation agency would be at liberty to file proper application for cancellation of bail and that application, if filed, shall be disposed of at the earliest. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (iii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. 19. Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.