Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44510

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 513 of 2025

Applicant :- Durga Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

None appears for the complainant however, notices have been served.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0533 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶9

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 has passed the following order:-

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party.

¶11

2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No.0533 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶12

3. As per contents of F.I.R., allegation levelled is that the applicant instigated the informant and his family members to make investment in the company known as Elected Spaire Private Limited with promise of more than adequate returns but the said promise has not been made good which clearly indicates cheating.

¶13

4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that he is neither a Director nor an office holder in the said Company and acted only as agent. It is further submitted that the applicant is a Teacher and was unaware with regard to any warrant being issued against him. It is also submitted that applicant has

¶14

cooperated in the investigation whereafter charge sheet was filed.

¶15

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the said facts. It is also admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶16

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that there is no specific allegation levelled against the applicant of either being the Chairperson, Managing Director or an office holder in the company and allegation levelled against him are only with regard to inducing investment by the informant. It is admitted that the applicant had cooperated during the course of investigation.

¶17

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail.

¶18

8. Let the accused-applicant Durga Prasad as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶19

9. In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶21

(ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶22

10. Issue notice to respondent no.2.

¶23

11. List this case on 28th May, 2025 as fresh along with service

¶24

report.

¶25

12. Objections may be filed in the meantime."

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation as well as in the trial and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Applicant has complied the order and has filed the bail bonds thereafter, he has been released on interim anticipatory bail.

¶27

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶28

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, applicant has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Musheer Alam v. State of U.P. reported in [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 116], the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶29

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

¶31

Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Durga Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhirendra Alias Baba Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Harikesh Verma (in Id Harikesh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Asgar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

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

Umashankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.