Allowed

Devendra Singh Bhadouria v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2025ABAIL/923/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to an 68-year-old bank manager falsely implicated in a cheating case regarding a forged property sale. The court noted his official duty, reliance on legal advice, and existing bail in a similar case.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with furnishing of personal bond and two solvent sureties subject to five standard conditions including appearance before trial court.

Devendra Singh Bhadouria Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 923 of 2025

¶3

Versus Devendra Singh Bhadouria	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harendra Pratap Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.	Singh, Uday

¶4

Court No. - 13

¶5

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Uday Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Virenda Kumar, learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 428/2019, under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Chief Manager, Bank of India, Unnao on 28.03.2019 against three named persons, not including the applicant, stating that one of the named accused persons Piyush had borrowed Rs. 49.50 lakh from the bank for purchasing a plot and constructing a house thereon. The borrower had submitted a sale agreement executed by the previous owner Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla and the other co-accused Piyush Pal had stood guarantor for repayment of the loan but subsequently it transpired that Santosh Kumar Shukla was a non existent person and he was not authorized to sell the plot. During investigation, the applicant has also been roped in on the basis of statement of co-accused Piyush Pal, guarantor for repayment of the loan, who stated that the applicant was also

¶9

ABAIL No. 923 of 2025

¶10

¶11

involved in the entire transaction as he was manager of the branch. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in another criminal case of similar nature has been disclosed in para-6 of the bail application, in which he has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 05.08.2025 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.863 of 2025.

¶12

The loan in question was disbursed of in the year 2017 after the applicant had duly taken legal advice. The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of the legal advisor who has stated that before giving the opinion in favour of the disbursal of the loan, he had examined the documents in the office of the Sub Registrar.

¶13

Meanwhile, the applicant has retired and he has presumably attained the age of 68 years.

¶14

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant had disbursed the loan in exercise of its official duties after taking due caution by obtaining a legal opinion and the legal advisor had stated that he had given opinion after examining the records of the office of Sub Registrar, Unnao; that the applicant has attained the age of 68 years and that the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail in another case of similar nature, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶16

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Devendra Singh Bhadouria before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶17

ABAIL No. 923 of 2025

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

(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;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

August 26, 2025

¶25

-Amit K-

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶27

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

Devendra Singh Bhadouria v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh Bhadouria v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Ajeet Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Shanu @ Zuaib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Shubham Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others