High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Om Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, same is taken on record.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 14.2.2025 in Case No. RC0062025A0002 u/s 7 of P.C. Act, U/s 61(2) of BNS, P.S. C.B.I./ A.C.B., District Lucknow. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

4. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure no. 1 which is the complaint lodged against the Field Officer, U.P. Baroda Bank, Branch Kasimabad, District Ghazipur, U.P. In such complaint no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. S.A.-1 which is a copy of the reply on behalf of C.B.I. which was filed before the trial court wherein one fact has been considered that the applicant made a call in a hand- free mode to accused Suneel Chaubey and during said call the applicant told Suneel Chaubey that some person has given some amount, so what to do for that, on that the accused Suneel Chaubey told the applicant to keep the amount and that all formalities regarding documentation would be done later on. The aforesaid conversation has been indicated in such letter. The present applicant is not a Bank employee who has been assigned the job of daily wager and being a daily wager he used to do the job of class IV employee. Suneel Chaubey, the main accused, was the Field Officer and the applicant was only following the instructions as he had nothing to do with the person who had given amount to Suneel Chaubey nor was instrumental in any manner to provide loan to the person concerned.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the offence for which the case has been registered is having punishment up to seven years. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Investigation is going on.

6. 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 trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that in the complaint no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, applicant is not a Bank employee who has only been assigned the job of daily wager and being a daily wager he used to do the job of class IV employee, the applicant was only following the instructions of the main accused (Suneel Chaubey, Field Officer) as he had nothing to do with the person who had given amount to Suneel Chaubey nor was instrumental in any manner to provide loan to the person concerned, the offence for which the case has been registered is having punishment up to seven years, applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Investigation is going on and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

9. Bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant Ravindra Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he / she 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 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 / her under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him / her in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) 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 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 / her in accordance with law. . Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) OM PRAKASH MISHRA OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Om Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, same is taken on record.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 14.2.2025 in Case No. RC0062025A0002 u/s 7 of P.C. Act, U/s 61(2) of BNS, P.S. C.B.I./ A.C.B., District Lucknow. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

4. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure no. 1 which is the complaint lodged against the Field Officer, U.P. Baroda Bank, Branch Kasimabad, District Ghazipur, U.P. In such complaint no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. Learned counsel has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. S.A.-1 which is a copy of the reply on behalf of C.B.I. which was filed before the trial court wherein one fact has been considered that the applicant made a call in a hand- free mode to accused Suneel Chaubey and during said call the applicant told Suneel Chaubey that some person has given some amount, so what to do for that, on that the accused Suneel Chaubey told the applicant to keep the amount and that all formalities regarding documentation would be done later on. The aforesaid conversation has been indicated in such letter. The present applicant is not a Bank employee who has been assigned the job of daily wager and being a daily wager he used to do the job of class IV employee. Suneel Chaubey, the main accused, was the Field Officer and the applicant was only following the instructions as he had nothing to do with the person who had given amount to Suneel Chaubey nor was instrumental in any manner to provide loan to the person concerned.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the offence for which the case has been registered is having punishment up to seven years. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Investigation is going on.

6. 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 trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that in the complaint no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, applicant is not a Bank employee who has only been assigned the job of daily wager and being a daily wager he used to do the job of class IV employee, the applicant was only following the instructions of the main accused (Suneel Chaubey, Field Officer) as he had nothing to do with the person who had given amount to Suneel Chaubey nor was instrumental in any manner to provide loan to the person concerned, the offence for which the case has been registered is having punishment up to seven years, applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Investigation is going on and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

9. Bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant Ravindra Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he / she 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 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 / her under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him / her in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) 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 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 / her in accordance with law. . Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) OM PRAKASH MISHRA OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench