Mukesh Kumar Jain vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47228

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10284 of 2025

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.1086 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 352, 351(3) BNS Act and Section 3/21 Banning of Unregulated Deposited Scheme Act, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits, applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that he was one of the agent of LUCC company.

¶11

He further submits that if agent, after receiving money from common public, deposited the same in one of the Scheme of the Company and subsequently company failed to return their amount then agent cannot be held liable for the same.

¶12

He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of eleven other cases but he was not having any previous criminal history and in ten cases he has been made accused along with the present matter with similar allegation.

¶13

He further submits that however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS, i.e., for organized

¶14

crime but as neither against the applicant nor any other co-accused person, any charge sheet was earlier filed, therefore, offence under Section 111 BNS is not made out. He further submits that at this stage it cannot be said that applicant was the members of the alleged syndicate.

¶15

He further submits, co-accused Mansingh and Ashok Ahirwar have been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1060 of 2025 and case of applicant is at par with them. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.12.2024.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

As per allegation LUCC Company even after receiving deposits from its investors through its agent failed to return their money but it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that he was the agent of LUCC Company. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that as he is agent of the Company, therefore, he cannot be held liable if subsequently Company failed to return the amount of its investors, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

¶19

Further, however, applicant has also been challened for offence under Section 111 BNS but it reflects that there is no cogent evidence on record in this regard against the applicant and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant in this regard, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶20

However, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of eleven other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant bail application and it reflects that he was not having any previous criminal history and in all the cases he has been made accused along with the present matter.

¶21

Further, bail application of co-accused Mansingh and Ashok Ahirwar has been allowed by this Court and case of applicant is at par with them. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail

¶22

since 08.12.2024.

¶23

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant- Mukesh Kumar Jain be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶27

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶31

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 AK Pandey

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Mahesh Prasad Rajak vs State of U.P.

Sarwan Vishwakarma vs State of U.P.

Rajindar vs State of U.P.

Chhotey Alias Badshah vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Singh vs State of U.P.

Balvinder Alias Mataru vs State of U.P.