State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Party(s)

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.159 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow). The allegation in the prosecution case is that a Plot No.1/124 Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow area 270 square meters was purchased by the complainant from Sri Raj Kumar co- accused. It is alleged that she was given an impression that seller Raj Kumar purchased the said plot in the year 2001 from Lucknow Development Authority which was specifically registered in the office of Sub Registrar-II on 12.10.2001. The complainant was introduced to Raj Kumar by the co-accused Mukesh Kumar. It is further alleged that for purchasing the aforesaid plot, a loan was applied by her in the ICICI bank and the loan was sanctioned by the bank after conducting the inquiry thereafter a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- (ninety lakh rupees) were transferred by the complainant the account of Raj Kumar however, after

17.02.2024 she was informed by Mukesh Kumar that some persons are making constructions on the said plot. Receiving this 2 BAIL No. 11428 of 2025 information, she approached the Vibhutikhand police station and informed the police. She also dialed No.112 and was further apprised that one Ajay Singh claiming himself to be the owner of the plot and has also registered F.I.R. against her in P.S. Vibhutikahnd. Later on, the Investigating Officer came to know that Raj Kumar by forged sale deed has sold the plot to complainant while hatching the conspiracy with the co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not received any amount in his account. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name has surfaced in the statement of Pooja Devi. There is no material available on the record to implicate the applicant. The consideration amount in question has been received by co- accused Raj Kumar and not the applicant. Only on the basis of statement of the co-accused applicant has been implicated in this case. The offences are triable by magistrate. The charge-sheet in the case has been filed. There is no chance of tampering the evidence. The co-accused Zaheer Ahmad who was assigned the similar role has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.737 of

2025. Another co-accused namely, Ram Kishore Dutt Tiwari has been granted bail by the learned court below. One other co- accused Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 4.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. bail Application No.3574 of 2025. Applicant claims parity with the bail order of Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 02.08.2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since

02.08.2025, bail order of co-accused Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan, the role assigned to the present applicant and the fact that 3 BAIL No. 11428 of 2025 there is nothing on record to suggest that any amount has been received by him in his account hence at this stage, this Court is of the view that role of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan, applicant has explained the criminal history of 12 cases in paragraph 16 of the bail application and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Avinash Singh (In FIR mentioned as Avnish Singh @ Sinku Singh) be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 4 BAIL No. 11428 of 2025 Cr.P.C. 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 of the Indian Penal Code. November 20, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.159 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow). The allegation in the prosecution case is that a Plot No.1/124 Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow area 270 square meters was purchased by the complainant from Sri Raj Kumar co- accused. It is alleged that she was given an impression that seller Raj Kumar purchased the said plot in the year 2001 from Lucknow Development Authority which was specifically registered in the office of Sub Registrar-II on 12.10.2001. The complainant was introduced to Raj Kumar by the co-accused Mukesh Kumar. It is further alleged that for purchasing the aforesaid plot, a loan was applied by her in the ICICI bank and the loan was sanctioned by the bank after conducting the inquiry thereafter a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- (ninety lakh rupees) were transferred by the complainant the account of Raj Kumar however, after

17.02.2024 she was informed by Mukesh Kumar that some persons are making constructions on the said plot. Receiving this 2 BAIL No. 11428 of 2025 information, she approached the Vibhutikhand police station and informed the police. She also dialed No.112 and was further apprised that one Ajay Singh claiming himself to be the owner of the plot and has also registered F.I.R. against her in P.S. Vibhutikahnd. Later on, the Investigating Officer came to know that Raj Kumar by forged sale deed has sold the plot to complainant while hatching the conspiracy with the co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not received any amount in his account. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name has surfaced in the statement of Pooja Devi. There is no material available on the record to implicate the applicant. The consideration amount in question has been received by co- accused Raj Kumar and not the applicant. Only on the basis of statement of the co-accused applicant has been implicated in this case. The offences are triable by magistrate. The charge-sheet in the case has been filed. There is no chance of tampering the evidence. The co-accused Zaheer Ahmad who was assigned the similar role has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.737 of

2025. Another co-accused namely, Ram Kishore Dutt Tiwari has been granted bail by the learned court below. One other co- accused Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 4.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. bail Application No.3574 of 2025. Applicant claims parity with the bail order of Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 02.08.2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since

02.08.2025, bail order of co-accused Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan, the role assigned to the present applicant and the fact that 3 BAIL No. 11428 of 2025 there is nothing on record to suggest that any amount has been received by him in his account hence at this stage, this Court is of the view that role of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan, applicant has explained the criminal history of 12 cases in paragraph 16 of the bail application and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Avinash Singh (In FIR mentioned as Avnish Singh @ Sinku Singh) be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 4 BAIL No. 11428 of 2025 Cr.P.C. 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 of the Indian Penal Code. November 20, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench