Ravi Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and leaned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant. Perused the order dated 31.07.2025 by which a cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the complainant. The applicant for exemption appears to have been filed on behalf of the complainant. There appears to be no plausible reasons pleaded in the affidavit filed in supported the application for exemption to exempt the cost. Thus, the applicant for exemption is rejected. 2 BAIL No. 3428 of 2025 (Order on the bail application) Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the complainant intended to purchase a house situated in Section 14-B, Vrindavan Yojna, Lucknow. House No. 14B/218 was shown to her by co-accused Suneel Kumar Shukla. The complainant and her husband allegedly paid an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,21,000/- by cheque to Suneel Kumar Shukla. It is further alleged that the said house had a loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- taken by Suneel Kumar Shukla from Foscos Financial Services, out of which Rs. 46,00,000/- was still outstanding. Suneel Kumar Shukla is said to have informed the complainant that after the outstanding amount was cleared, the sale deed would be executed. It is also alleged that, on the instructions of Suneel Kumar Shukla, the complainant transferred Rs. 41,00,000/- to the account of Vipin Shukla on 31.12.2023. Despite this payment, when no documents relating to the house were provided, the complainant refused to proceed with the purchase. Thereafter, the present applicant, Ravi Singh, was introduced, and in a telephonic conversation assured the complainant that the original documents were in his possession; a loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- stood against the property; and Suneel Kumar Shukla had deposited approximately Rs. 13–14 lakh from the loan amount, stating that the documents of the house would be handed over once the balance was paid. It is further alleged that by 31.07.2024, the complainant and her husband had paid a total amount of Rs.73,99,911/-, yet no registered sale deed was executed. Upon demanding a refund, Suneel Kumar Shukla and Vipin Shukla allegedly transferred Rs. 13,25,000/- to the complainant on different dates and issued two cheques of Rs.20,00,000/- each, which were dishonoured. It is also alleged that on 14.11.2024, when the complainant went to the house of Suneel Kumar Shukla to demand the remaining amount, she was threatened. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that, even as per the prosecution’s own case, no amount has been received by the applicant from the complainant or her husband. The offences are triable by the Magistrate. It is urged that the alleged acts, if any, were committed by co-accused 3 BAIL No. 3428 of 2025 Suneel Kumar Shukla and Vipin Shukla, both of whom are absconding. The only allegation against the applicant pertains to conspiracy. With respect to the sum of Rs.27,41,400/- received in the account of Foscos Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., it is submitted that the entire amount was transferred to the account of one Sarvesh Pandey, as reflected in the bank statement filed as Annexure-2 to the bail application. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially registered under Section 316(2) BNS but was later altered to Section 316(5) BNS during investigation. Bail under Sections 316(5), 318(4), and 351(3) BNS was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, on 08.04.2025 in Bail Application No. 2090 of 2025. The applicant’s bail in the subsequently added sections was again rejected on 15.07.2025 in Bail Application No. 5018 of 2025 by the same court. It is also argued that the property was never entrusted to the applicant, and therefore no offence under Section 316(5) BNS is made out. It is further submitted that the applicant neither prepared any forged document nor showed any registered sale deed to the complainant, and thus no offence under Section 338 BNS is attracted. The dispute, according to the applicant, is purely civil in nature. The applicant has explained his criminal antecedents in the rejoinder/supplementary affidavit, which relate to only one case. He is in custody since 17.03.2025, and since the charge sheet has been filed, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in custody. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, does not dispute the facts that primarily allegations against the applicant is of conspiracy. Considering the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the explanation of his single criminal antecedent, the fact that he is in custody since 17.03.2025, the filing of the charge sheet, and the offence being triable by the Magistrate, this Court finds it a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 4 BAIL No. 3428 of 2025 Let the applicant Ravi Singh, involved in case crime No. 0014 of 2025, Under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 351(3) BNS {Added sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS} Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow), be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. December 10, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and leaned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant. Perused the order dated 31.07.2025 by which a cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the complainant. The applicant for exemption appears to have been filed on behalf of the complainant. There appears to be no plausible reasons pleaded in the affidavit filed in supported the application for exemption to exempt the cost. Thus, the applicant for exemption is rejected. 2 BAIL No. 3428 of 2025 (Order on the bail application) Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. None appears on behalf of the complainant. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the complainant intended to purchase a house situated in Section 14-B, Vrindavan Yojna, Lucknow. House No. 14B/218 was shown to her by co-accused Suneel Kumar Shukla. The complainant and her husband allegedly paid an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,21,000/- by cheque to Suneel Kumar Shukla. It is further alleged that the said house had a loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- taken by Suneel Kumar Shukla from Foscos Financial Services, out of which Rs. 46,00,000/- was still outstanding. Suneel Kumar Shukla is said to have informed the complainant that after the outstanding amount was cleared, the sale deed would be executed. It is also alleged that, on the instructions of Suneel Kumar Shukla, the complainant transferred Rs. 41,00,000/- to the account of Vipin Shukla on 31.12.2023. Despite this payment, when no documents relating to the house were provided, the complainant refused to proceed with the purchase. Thereafter, the present applicant, Ravi Singh, was introduced, and in a telephonic conversation assured the complainant that the original documents were in his possession; a loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- stood against the property; and Suneel Kumar Shukla had deposited approximately Rs. 13–14 lakh from the loan amount, stating that the documents of the house would be handed over once the balance was paid. It is further alleged that by 31.07.2024, the complainant and her husband had paid a total amount of Rs.73,99,911/-, yet no registered sale deed was executed. Upon demanding a refund, Suneel Kumar Shukla and Vipin Shukla allegedly transferred Rs. 13,25,000/- to the complainant on different dates and issued two cheques of Rs.20,00,000/- each, which were dishonoured. It is also alleged that on 14.11.2024, when the complainant went to the house of Suneel Kumar Shukla to demand the remaining amount, she was threatened. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that, even as per the prosecution’s own case, no amount has been received by the applicant from the complainant or her husband. The offences are triable by the Magistrate. It is urged that the alleged acts, if any, were committed by co-accused 3 BAIL No. 3428 of 2025 Suneel Kumar Shukla and Vipin Shukla, both of whom are absconding. The only allegation against the applicant pertains to conspiracy. With respect to the sum of Rs.27,41,400/- received in the account of Foscos Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., it is submitted that the entire amount was transferred to the account of one Sarvesh Pandey, as reflected in the bank statement filed as Annexure-2 to the bail application. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially registered under Section 316(2) BNS but was later altered to Section 316(5) BNS during investigation. Bail under Sections 316(5), 318(4), and 351(3) BNS was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, on 08.04.2025 in Bail Application No. 2090 of 2025. The applicant’s bail in the subsequently added sections was again rejected on 15.07.2025 in Bail Application No. 5018 of 2025 by the same court. It is also argued that the property was never entrusted to the applicant, and therefore no offence under Section 316(5) BNS is made out. It is further submitted that the applicant neither prepared any forged document nor showed any registered sale deed to the complainant, and thus no offence under Section 338 BNS is attracted. The dispute, according to the applicant, is purely civil in nature. The applicant has explained his criminal antecedents in the rejoinder/supplementary affidavit, which relate to only one case. He is in custody since 17.03.2025, and since the charge sheet has been filed, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in custody. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, does not dispute the facts that primarily allegations against the applicant is of conspiracy. Considering the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the explanation of his single criminal antecedent, the fact that he is in custody since 17.03.2025, the filing of the charge sheet, and the offence being triable by the Magistrate, this Court finds it a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 4 BAIL No. 3428 of 2025 Let the applicant Ravi Singh, involved in case crime No. 0014 of 2025, Under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 351(3) BNS {Added sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS} Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow), be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. December 10, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench