Allahabad High Court

Srivastava, Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Pankaj Gupta, Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Archana Yadav Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. Bank draft bearing No.674170 amounting to Rs.Three Lakh/- and draft bearing No.694171 amounting to Rs. Two Lakh/- issued from the Indian Bank, Branch-Indira Nagar, Unnao, have been provided by the learned counsel for the appellant to the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 before this Court in terms of earlier order of this Court passed on

02.06.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State- respondent no.1 and Ms. Archana Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Upper District Evam Session Judge, Court No.2, District Unnao rejecting the bail application No. 2333 of 2024 of the appellant in case crime No. 884 of 2023 under Sections 406, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & 3(2)5 Act of P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Unnao.

3. As per contents of FIR, allegation levelled is primarily against one Devesh Shukla and Om Narayan who allegedly extorted a substantial amount of money from the informant on the pretext of saving her employment with the school which allegedly was against the rules. It is alleged that when the informant refused further payment, the appellant alongwith co-accused is said to have berated the informant while making caste based epithets and insulted her.

4. It has been submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that the FIR itself only indicates a financial transaction between the parties which went sour. It is submitted that allegations pertaining to S.C./S.T. Act have been levelled as an afterthought. 2 CRLA No. 2991 of 2024

5. It is further submitted that on the basis of instructions, the appellant is ready and willing to repay all the amount allegedly shown having been extracted from the informant and to show his bona fides, the appellant has produced two demand drafts drawn on the Bank of Baroda with the first demand draft bearing no. 370160 dated 21.05.2025 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable to Neeru wife of Rajesh Kumar with second demand draft bearing no. 370167 dated 31.05.2025 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- being presented today to learned counsel for respondent no.2 which has been received by her. It is submitted that remaining amount shall also be paid within a period of two months from the date appellant is released from custody.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 admits on the basis of instructions that the informant and appellant could enter into a compromise with regard to the alleged financial transaction. It is submitted that a total amount of Rs. 18,76,200/- was paid solely to the appellant only with remaining amount being given to the co-accused. It is, however, admitted that remaining amount may be paid within a period of two months.

7. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the appeal but does not dispute the said facts.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that primary allegation levelled against appellant is of financial transactions between the parties on the pretext of saving employment of the informant. As per admission of learned counsel for parties that the appellant is ready and willing to repay the amount which was credited in his account by the informant, interim bail is granted for purposes of carrying out the undertaking of the appellant.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

10. Let appellant, Shubhendra Tripathi, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim bail on his furnishing a personal bond 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) The appellant 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. (ii) The appellant 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 3 CRLA No. 2991 of 2024 court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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. (iv) The appellant 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 appellant 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.

11. List this case on 12.08.2025." It has also been submitted that parties have agreed to settle their dispute on an amount to the tune of Rs. 17 Lakh/-. Taking note of aforesaid, let the present appeal be listed on 24.11.2025 to enable Mrs. Archana Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 to file an affidavit in this regard as at bar she stated that the dispute has been settled on the amount of Rs. 17 Lakh. November 15, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)

Srivastava, Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Pankaj Gupta, Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Archana Yadav Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. Bank draft bearing No.674170 amounting to Rs.Three Lakh/- and draft bearing No.694171 amounting to Rs. Two Lakh/- issued from the Indian Bank, Branch-Indira Nagar, Unnao, have been provided by the learned counsel for the appellant to the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 before this Court in terms of earlier order of this Court passed on

02.06.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State- respondent no.1 and Ms. Archana Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Upper District Evam Session Judge, Court No.2, District Unnao rejecting the bail application No. 2333 of 2024 of the appellant in case crime No. 884 of 2023 under Sections 406, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & 3(2)5 Act of P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Unnao.

3. As per contents of FIR, allegation levelled is primarily against one Devesh Shukla and Om Narayan who allegedly extorted a substantial amount of money from the informant on the pretext of saving her employment with the school which allegedly was against the rules. It is alleged that when the informant refused further payment, the appellant alongwith co-accused is said to have berated the informant while making caste based epithets and insulted her.

4. It has been submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that the FIR itself only indicates a financial transaction between the parties which went sour. It is submitted that allegations pertaining to S.C./S.T. Act have been levelled as an afterthought. 2 CRLA No. 2991 of 2024

5. It is further submitted that on the basis of instructions, the appellant is ready and willing to repay all the amount allegedly shown having been extracted from the informant and to show his bona fides, the appellant has produced two demand drafts drawn on the Bank of Baroda with the first demand draft bearing no. 370160 dated 21.05.2025 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable to Neeru wife of Rajesh Kumar with second demand draft bearing no. 370167 dated 31.05.2025 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- being presented today to learned counsel for respondent no.2 which has been received by her. It is submitted that remaining amount shall also be paid within a period of two months from the date appellant is released from custody.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 admits on the basis of instructions that the informant and appellant could enter into a compromise with regard to the alleged financial transaction. It is submitted that a total amount of Rs. 18,76,200/- was paid solely to the appellant only with remaining amount being given to the co-accused. It is, however, admitted that remaining amount may be paid within a period of two months.

7. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the appeal but does not dispute the said facts.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that primary allegation levelled against appellant is of financial transactions between the parties on the pretext of saving employment of the informant. As per admission of learned counsel for parties that the appellant is ready and willing to repay the amount which was credited in his account by the informant, interim bail is granted for purposes of carrying out the undertaking of the appellant.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

10. Let appellant, Shubhendra Tripathi, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim bail on his furnishing a personal bond 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) The appellant 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. (ii) The appellant 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 3 CRLA No. 2991 of 2024 court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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. (iv) The appellant 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 appellant 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.

11. List this case on 12.08.2025." It has also been submitted that parties have agreed to settle their dispute on an amount to the tune of Rs. 17 Lakh/-. Taking note of aforesaid, let the present appeal be listed on 24.11.2025 to enable Mrs. Archana Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 to file an affidavit in this regard as at bar she stated that the dispute has been settled on the amount of Rs. 17 Lakh. November 15, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)