Piyush Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13862

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 139 of 2025

Applicant :- Piyush Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today by the learned State counsel is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC./482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 33 of 2023, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B of IPC P.S.- S.I.T., District- Lucknow.

¶9

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 30.1.2025, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶10

“ 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 33 of 2023, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B of IPC P.S.- S.I.T., District- Lucknow.

¶12

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the firm in question is registered under the name of applicant's wife though admittedly he is looking after day to day functioning of the firm. He submits that the applicant has supplied all the materials as per the supply order and due to certain misconception the amount of Rs.17.51 crores are said to be embezzled though there is no ample evidence against the applicant. He also stated that the other coaccused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad. Further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is cooperating in the investigation proceedings. He also submits that there is apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶13

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶14

5. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the

¶15

contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶16

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Piyush Jain shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

(ii) that 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;

¶19

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

7. Let counter affidavit be filed by the State, within period of two weeks. A week thereafter, is given to counsel for the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶23

8. List/put up this matter in first week of March, 2025.”

¶24

State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Piyush Jain till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶27

(ii) that 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;

¶28

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶29

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶30

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶31

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶32

Order Date :- 6.3.2025

¶33

Shravan

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Piyush Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naseem Ahmad (Dr. Naseem as Per Fir) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko.

Satyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Brijesh Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chier Secy. Home Lko.

Hausila Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rakesh Kumar Surana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Dheerendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.