Shushil Kumar Yadav @ Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0181 of 2025 under Section 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) BNS, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Ayodhaya.

¶13

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the accused persons opened an establishment in the name of Diamond Marriage Hall, Ayodhya, and launched a mobile application titled LG-LF-WORK for the purpose of collecting money from the public through various QR codes. It is alleged that these individuals formed a firm under the name LG-LF-WORK Group and, by floating various schemes promising double business profits, induced people to deposit money with them. It is further alleged that the accused persons misrepresented that they were operating multiple companies and assured investors that they would receive half of the profits. In this manner, they dishonestly persuaded the public to invest money and thereafter misappropriated the deposits. The complainant also invested an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. It is lastly alleged that after collecting huge sums of money from several investors, the accused persons absconded and embezzled the invested funds.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation in the FIR that the applicant was the Additional Director of the company is false, as there is

¶15

BAIL No. 10210 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

no material on record to show that the applicant was holding such a position. It is contended that merely because the applicant happens to be the son of one of the owners, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The offence alleged is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant has no criminal history and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation as well as the trial, if required.

¶18

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.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶20

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

¶21

On due consideration to the facts that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, the applicant has no criminal history, he has been languishing in jail since 21.09.2025, and keeping in view the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant Shushil Kumar Yadav 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 court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

BAIL No. 10210 of 2025

¶28

3

¶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

November 10, 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

Shushil Kumar Yadav @ Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shushil Kumar Yadav @ Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Shoaib Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Devendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Rupesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

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