State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Shri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Akhilesh Dubey with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2025, under Sections 308(2), 308(5), 351(3), 308(7), 61(2), 231 of BNS, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the accused applicant is entirely innocent and he has been falsely implicated on the strength of allegations contained in F.I.R., which are nothing but farrago of distortions and embellishments having no truth. He further submits that applicant has not given any coerce in the Criminal Case No. 563 of 2024 lodged against Ravi Satija (informant) and nor does he has any connection with that case. He further submits that the F.I.R. regarding Case Crime No. 202 of 2024 was lodged at Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar 2 BAIL No. 34926 of 2025 against four accused persons namely Satya Narayan Agrawal, Virendra Kumar Mallu, Sandeep Agrawal and Vimal Yadav citing the same incident dated 29.02.2024, which is also mentioned in the present F.I.R., however neither the applicant was named in that F.I.R. nor his name was featured during the course of investigation. He further submits that the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar while rejecting the bail application of applicant vide order dated

04.09.2025 make mention of the statement recorded under section 180 and 183 of BNSS of co-accused Nisha Kumari and Geeta Kumari while they were in custody in the present matter and bare perusal of the same, it is evident that the same appears to have been made under duress and as per the dictates of the police. He further submits that the statement of co-accused Nisha Kumari and Geeta Kumari, which was under section 180 and 183 BNSS were in stark contrast to their earlier statement recorded under section 180 and 183 BNSS during the course of investigation of Case Crime No. 563 of 2024 and hence credibility of the statement under section 183 BNSS of the said witnesses are highly doubtful. He further submits that five cases including the present one have been recently instituted against the applicant with the intention to harass him, whereas accused applicant is old aged, respected person of the society and practicing as an Advocate at District Court Kanpur. He further submits that there is no reliable evidence regarding the fact that Rs. 50 lakh was demanded by the accused applicant from the informant Ravi Satija. The statement of the co-accused Nisha and Geeta is not reliable in the eye of law. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 06.08.2025. 3 BAIL No. 34926 of 2025

4. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Manish Goyal vehemently opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Sushil Trivedi is the witness whose statement was recorded during the course of investigation and he supported the F.I.R. version to the effect that the accused applicant Akhilesh Dubey, who is an Advocate at District Court Kanpur had threatened the informant in his office and demanded Rs. 50 lakh in front of him. The Statement of Sushil Trivedi is part and parcel of the case diary in Parcha no. 44. He further submits that audio recording of the informant and Akhilesh Dubey and second audio recording of Anurag and Akhilesh Dubey were provided to the investigating Officer which has also been made part of the case diary. Copy of the audio recording has been incorporated in Parcha no. 4 of the case diary. The statement of Nisha Kumari was recorded (informant of Case Crime No. 563 of 2024 which is related to rape and POCSO matter), under Section 180 BNSS, wherein she categorically stated that Case Crime No. 563 of 2024 was lodged under pressure and threat of Akhilesh Dubey and she does not know the informant Ravi Satija and Dhruv Gupta. He further submits that the statement of Nisha Kumari was also recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein she has reiterated her earlier statement to the effect that for the first time she came to know while giving statement before the Magistrate that a case has been filed against Ravi Satija and the statement was given under threat of accused Akhilesh Dubey and other accused persons. He submits that the statement of Nisha Kumari recorded under section 183 of BNSS, has been incorporated in Parcha no. 18 of the case diary, which reveals that a case of rape and POCSO Act was registered against Ravi Satija (informant of the present case) and others, without reality and authenticity and sole basis of aid, support and conspiracy of accused applicant and others. The statement of independent witnesses Satendra Mishra and Anurag Kapoor was also recorded in Case Crime no. 563 of 2024, under section 376, 511, 354, 354B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 7/8 POCSO Act. At this stage, it appears that active and conspiratory role of accused applicant Akhilesh Dubey is crucial so 4 BAIL No. 34926 of 2025 far as the false registration of the criminal cases against the informant Ravi Satija and others in lieu of demanding unlawful consideration of Rs. 50 lakh by way of threatening. The informant stated in his statement under section 183 BNSS that he paid Rs. 5 lakh to the accused Akhilesh Dubey and Rs. 10-20 thousand to other persons namely Ravi Mishra, Vimal Yadav, Teenu Yadav and Abhishek Bajpayee, who were associated with accused Akhilesh Dubey, as they have threatened to implicate him in rape and POCSO Act.

5. Mr. Goyal further submits that 46 inquiries are pending against the accused applicant Akhilesh Dubey and his gang, before the Special Investigation Team (SIT), list of 46 inquiries has been produced as Annexure no. 3 to the counter affidavit. He further submits that the accused applicant has 6 criminal cases including the present one and all the cases are related to the heinous offences. He further submits that in another case (Criminal Case No. 26 of 2011) which was against the accused applicant, Final Report No. 7 of 2011 was submitted within 5 hours by the then Investigating Officer, Rajesh Kumar Tewari and after filing of protest petition in the matter, the concerned Magistrate has allowed the protest petition and informed the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar to institute a departmental proceeding in accordance with law against the then Investigating Officer, thus, the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

6. At this stage, it is apparent from perusal of the statement of important and relevant witnesses recorded under section 180 and 183 of BNSS, particularly the statement of Nisha Kumari and Geeta Kumari, it appears that the role and involvement of the accused applicant Akhilesh Dubey is only to lodge the fake heinous criminal cases of rape and POCSO Act against the informant and other persons 'only' to grab the unlawful gain/ money, from the informant Ravi Satija. From the perusal of the concerned record/ related case diary etc., it appears that the 5 BAIL No. 34926 of 2025 accused applicant is only the 'center point' to register the fake criminal cases with the help of innocent girls/ ladies to falsely implicate the informant and other persons in order to grab huge amount. Thus, the facts alleged against the applicant, if taken together and linked, it conclusively lead to an inference that the accused-applicant is the main accused. It is also informed that investigation is going on.

7. In view of above, looking to the gravity, nature and magnitude of the offence, role, involvement and complicity of the accused- applicant, criminal background/ conduct and behaviour of accused, reasonable possibility to abuse his professional position, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension to interfere the investigation and pressurize /intimidate the prosecution witnesses, tempering the evidence and taking into consideration overall circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason sufficient to allow the bail application. Hence, the bail application of accused- applicant Akhilesh Dubey is rejected. October 27, 2025 Bhanu (Santosh Rai,J.)

1. Heard Shri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Akhilesh Dubey with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2025, under Sections 308(2), 308(5), 351(3), 308(7), 61(2), 231 of BNS, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the accused applicant is entirely innocent and he has been falsely implicated on the strength of allegations contained in F.I.R., which are nothing but farrago of distortions and embellishments having no truth. He further submits that applicant has not given any coerce in the Criminal Case No. 563 of 2024 lodged against Ravi Satija (informant) and nor does he has any connection with that case. He further submits that the F.I.R. regarding Case Crime No. 202 of 2024 was lodged at Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar 2 BAIL No. 34926 of 2025 against four accused persons namely Satya Narayan Agrawal, Virendra Kumar Mallu, Sandeep Agrawal and Vimal Yadav citing the same incident dated 29.02.2024, which is also mentioned in the present F.I.R., however neither the applicant was named in that F.I.R. nor his name was featured during the course of investigation. He further submits that the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar while rejecting the bail application of applicant vide order dated

04.09.2025 make mention of the statement recorded under section 180 and 183 of BNSS of co-accused Nisha Kumari and Geeta Kumari while they were in custody in the present matter and bare perusal of the same, it is evident that the same appears to have been made under duress and as per the dictates of the police. He further submits that the statement of co-accused Nisha Kumari and Geeta Kumari, which was under section 180 and 183 BNSS were in stark contrast to their earlier statement recorded under section 180 and 183 BNSS during the course of investigation of Case Crime No. 563 of 2024 and hence credibility of the statement under section 183 BNSS of the said witnesses are highly doubtful. He further submits that five cases including the present one have been recently instituted against the applicant with the intention to harass him, whereas accused applicant is old aged, respected person of the society and practicing as an Advocate at District Court Kanpur. He further submits that there is no reliable evidence regarding the fact that Rs. 50 lakh was demanded by the accused applicant from the informant Ravi Satija. The statement of the co-accused Nisha and Geeta is not reliable in the eye of law. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 06.08.2025. 3 BAIL No. 34926 of 2025

4. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Manish Goyal vehemently opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Sushil Trivedi is the witness whose statement was recorded during the course of investigation and he supported the F.I.R. version to the effect that the accused applicant Akhilesh Dubey, who is an Advocate at District Court Kanpur had threatened the informant in his office and demanded Rs. 50 lakh in front of him. The Statement of Sushil Trivedi is part and parcel of the case diary in Parcha no. 44. He further submits that audio recording of the informant and Akhilesh Dubey and second audio recording of Anurag and Akhilesh Dubey were provided to the investigating Officer which has also been made part of the case diary. Copy of the audio recording has been incorporated in Parcha no. 4 of the case diary. The statement of Nisha Kumari was recorded (informant of Case Crime No. 563 of 2024 which is related to rape and POCSO matter), under Section 180 BNSS, wherein she categorically stated that Case Crime No. 563 of 2024 was lodged under pressure and threat of Akhilesh Dubey and she does not know the informant Ravi Satija and Dhruv Gupta. He further submits that the statement of Nisha Kumari was also recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein she has reiterated her earlier statement to the effect that for the first time she came to know while giving statement before the Magistrate that a case has been filed against Ravi Satija and the statement was given under threat of accused Akhilesh Dubey and other accused persons. He submits that the statement of Nisha Kumari recorded under section 183 of BNSS, has been incorporated in Parcha no. 18 of the case diary, which reveals that a case of rape and POCSO Act was registered against Ravi Satija (informant of the present case) and others, without reality and authenticity and sole basis of aid, support and conspiracy of accused applicant and others. The statement of independent witnesses Satendra Mishra and Anurag Kapoor was also recorded in Case Crime no. 563 of 2024, under section 376, 511, 354, 354B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 7/8 POCSO Act. At this stage, it appears that active and conspiratory role of accused applicant Akhilesh Dubey is crucial so 4 BAIL No. 34926 of 2025 far as the false registration of the criminal cases against the informant Ravi Satija and others in lieu of demanding unlawful consideration of Rs. 50 lakh by way of threatening. The informant stated in his statement under section 183 BNSS that he paid Rs. 5 lakh to the accused Akhilesh Dubey and Rs. 10-20 thousand to other persons namely Ravi Mishra, Vimal Yadav, Teenu Yadav and Abhishek Bajpayee, who were associated with accused Akhilesh Dubey, as they have threatened to implicate him in rape and POCSO Act.

5. Mr. Goyal further submits that 46 inquiries are pending against the accused applicant Akhilesh Dubey and his gang, before the Special Investigation Team (SIT), list of 46 inquiries has been produced as Annexure no. 3 to the counter affidavit. He further submits that the accused applicant has 6 criminal cases including the present one and all the cases are related to the heinous offences. He further submits that in another case (Criminal Case No. 26 of 2011) which was against the accused applicant, Final Report No. 7 of 2011 was submitted within 5 hours by the then Investigating Officer, Rajesh Kumar Tewari and after filing of protest petition in the matter, the concerned Magistrate has allowed the protest petition and informed the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar to institute a departmental proceeding in accordance with law against the then Investigating Officer, thus, the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

6. At this stage, it is apparent from perusal of the statement of important and relevant witnesses recorded under section 180 and 183 of BNSS, particularly the statement of Nisha Kumari and Geeta Kumari, it appears that the role and involvement of the accused applicant Akhilesh Dubey is only to lodge the fake heinous criminal cases of rape and POCSO Act against the informant and other persons 'only' to grab the unlawful gain/ money, from the informant Ravi Satija. From the perusal of the concerned record/ related case diary etc., it appears that the 5 BAIL No. 34926 of 2025 accused applicant is only the 'center point' to register the fake criminal cases with the help of innocent girls/ ladies to falsely implicate the informant and other persons in order to grab huge amount. Thus, the facts alleged against the applicant, if taken together and linked, it conclusively lead to an inference that the accused-applicant is the main accused. It is also informed that investigation is going on.

7. In view of above, looking to the gravity, nature and magnitude of the offence, role, involvement and complicity of the accused- applicant, criminal background/ conduct and behaviour of accused, reasonable possibility to abuse his professional position, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension to interfere the investigation and pressurize /intimidate the prosecution witnesses, tempering the evidence and taking into consideration overall circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason sufficient to allow the bail application. Hence, the bail application of accused- applicant Akhilesh Dubey is rejected. October 27, 2025 Bhanu (Santosh Rai,J.)