Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10050 of 2025

¶3

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tiwari

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Wali Nawaz Khan, Gauri Pandey	Suwan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Arunendra Pratap Singh, Kumar Verma, Nisha Kumari, Singh	Devesh Vandana

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Wali Nawaz Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record.

¶10

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2025, under Section 409, 420 IPC, Police Station Aashiyana, District Lucknow Central (Commissionerate Lucknow).

¶11

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant entered into an agreement with the company, wherein the present applicant, being the Director, agreed to sell a plot of land measuring 2400 sq. ft. in Sai Green City, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, at the rate of Rs. 550 per sq. ft. It is alleged that although Director Anuj Mehrotra had signed the written agreement in respect of Plot No. B-60 and had also shown the site map, despite the fact that the entire amount was deposited by the complainant, none of the Directors of the company executed the registered sale deed. It is further alleged that a total sum of Rs. 9,53,839/- had been paid by the complainant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that on

¶13

BAIL No. 10050 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

the same set of allegations, as many as fourteen other criminal cases have been instituted against him. Out of these, in three cases the applicant has been granted regular bail, in two cases he has been granted anticipatory bail, and in two cases a final report has been submitted. It is further submitted that no registered agreement has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate the allegations made in the FIR.

¶16

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complaint have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶18

Learned A.G.A., upon the query made by the Court, could not show from the case diary that any registered agreement has been entered into between the parties, neither order of payment by which money has been paid to the company has been ascertained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. However, learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has paid the money through online payment as well as cash.

¶19

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶20

On due consideration to the facts that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, the agreement alleged in the FIR is not part of the case diary, the fact that the applicant is in jail since 09.09.2025 in the present case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tiwari 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

¶23

BAIL No. 10050 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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 IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶31

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)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 IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶32

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.

¶33

October 30, 2025

¶34

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶35

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vimal Kumar Pandey @ Bose Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Awadhesh Kumar Omar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another