State of U.P. vs Party(s)

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence of forgery etc as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since

27.7.2024. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the FIR has been registered at a very belated stage on 1.4.2024 whereas the incident is said to have been occurred in the year 2023 for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is further submitted that name of applicant has surfaced on the basis of statement of informant during the course of investigation by the I.O. and he is not the beneficiary of so called fraud transaction. It is argued that co-accused persons Furkan, Amit Rajput and Rohit Verma, who are named in the FIR have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated

31.7.2025, 12.8.2025, 21.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39959 of 2024, 37932 of 2024, 44848 of 2024 respectively. It is further argued that the applicant has criminal history of five cases which have been explained in para 23 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 9.6.2025, therefore, 2 BAIL No. 36266 of 2025 there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressuring the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he is not able to explain as to how much amount has been misappropriated or how the offence has been committed by the applicant in this case.

5. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Inder Mohan Goswai and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "This Court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases." In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673, the Apex Court has again held that "Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essenttial ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence."

6. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. 3 BAIL No. 36266 of 2025 (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 as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS 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 IPC/209 of BNS. (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./351 of B.N.S.S. 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.

7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 17, 2025 RA (Santosh Rai,J.) RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence of forgery etc as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since

27.7.2024. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the FIR has been registered at a very belated stage on 1.4.2024 whereas the incident is said to have been occurred in the year 2023 for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is further submitted that name of applicant has surfaced on the basis of statement of informant during the course of investigation by the I.O. and he is not the beneficiary of so called fraud transaction. It is argued that co-accused persons Furkan, Amit Rajput and Rohit Verma, who are named in the FIR have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated

31.7.2025, 12.8.2025, 21.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39959 of 2024, 37932 of 2024, 44848 of 2024 respectively. It is further argued that the applicant has criminal history of five cases which have been explained in para 23 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 9.6.2025, therefore, 2 BAIL No. 36266 of 2025 there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressuring the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he is not able to explain as to how much amount has been misappropriated or how the offence has been committed by the applicant in this case.

5. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Inder Mohan Goswai and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "This Court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases." In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673, the Apex Court has again held that "Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essenttial ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence."

6. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. 3 BAIL No. 36266 of 2025 (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 as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS 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 IPC/209 of BNS. (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./351 of B.N.S.S. 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.

7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 17, 2025 RA (Santosh Rai,J.) RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad