High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR of the present case as many as 26 persons are named including applicant and as per allegation LUCC Company after receiving money from its investors did not return their amount and as per allegation made in the FIR applicant was Legal Advisor of the Company.

4. He further submits that however, applicant is not even Legal Advisor of the Company and he is retired person and he is only service provider but even if it is accepted that he is Legal Advisor of the Company then also it cannot be said that applicant also involved in the present crime along with the employees of LUCC Company.

5. He further submits that along with the applicant co-accused Manvendra Dwivedi, the Chairman of the Company, has also been made accused but when he challenged the FIR of the present case before Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 15711 of 2024 then Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 stayed his arrest till the submission of Police report under Section 193(3) BNSS and the order passed by this Court has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

6. He further submits that as arrest of Chairman of the Group has been stayed by this Court, therefore, there is no occasion to detain the applicant further in the present matter.

7. He further submits that however in the present matter applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS but there is absolutely no cogent evidence against him in this regard on record. It is next submitted, while passing stay order in favour of the Chairman of the Company Division Bench of this Court also appreciated the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., co-accused Manvendra Dwivedi with regard to offence under Section 111 BNS.

8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since

25.1.2025.

9. Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, in the FIR of the present case as many as 26 persons are named including applicant and allegation prima facie appears to be quite serious that LUCC Company misappropriated the huge amount of common public but as per allegation made in the FIR applicant was the Legal Advisor of the Firm and considering this fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant being Legal Advisor of the Company, cannot be held liable, if Company subsequently duped its investors, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

12. Further, FIR shows that along with the applicant Chairman of the Company has also been made accused in the FIR but his arrest has been stayed by Division Bench of this Court till submission of police report under Section 193(3) BNSS.

13. Further, however, in the present matter applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS but prima facie it appears that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant in this regard on record.

14. Further, it appears, even the Division Bench while granting stay order in favour of the Chairman of the Company appreciated the argument advanced by his learned counsel that no offence under Section 111 BNS is made out.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 25.1.2025.

16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and the bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for either punitive or preventive purpose.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant-Parikshit Parse be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR of the present case as many as 26 persons are named including applicant and as per allegation LUCC Company after receiving money from its investors did not return their amount and as per allegation made in the FIR applicant was Legal Advisor of the Company.

4. He further submits that however, applicant is not even Legal Advisor of the Company and he is retired person and he is only service provider but even if it is accepted that he is Legal Advisor of the Company then also it cannot be said that applicant also involved in the present crime along with the employees of LUCC Company.

5. He further submits that along with the applicant co-accused Manvendra Dwivedi, the Chairman of the Company, has also been made accused but when he challenged the FIR of the present case before Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 15711 of 2024 then Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 stayed his arrest till the submission of Police report under Section 193(3) BNSS and the order passed by this Court has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

6. He further submits that as arrest of Chairman of the Group has been stayed by this Court, therefore, there is no occasion to detain the applicant further in the present matter.

7. He further submits that however in the present matter applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS but there is absolutely no cogent evidence against him in this regard on record. It is next submitted, while passing stay order in favour of the Chairman of the Company Division Bench of this Court also appreciated the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., co-accused Manvendra Dwivedi with regard to offence under Section 111 BNS.

8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since

25.1.2025.

9. Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, in the FIR of the present case as many as 26 persons are named including applicant and allegation prima facie appears to be quite serious that LUCC Company misappropriated the huge amount of common public but as per allegation made in the FIR applicant was the Legal Advisor of the Firm and considering this fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant being Legal Advisor of the Company, cannot be held liable, if Company subsequently duped its investors, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

12. Further, FIR shows that along with the applicant Chairman of the Company has also been made accused in the FIR but his arrest has been stayed by Division Bench of this Court till submission of police report under Section 193(3) BNSS.

13. Further, however, in the present matter applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS but prima facie it appears that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant in this regard on record.

14. Further, it appears, even the Division Bench while granting stay order in favour of the Chairman of the Company appreciated the argument advanced by his learned counsel that no offence under Section 111 BNS is made out.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 25.1.2025.

16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and the bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for either punitive or preventive purpose.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant-Parikshit Parse be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad