Mansingh vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18610

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1057 of 2025

Applicant :- Mansingh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 688 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 336(3), 61(2), 340(2) BNS and 3/21 B.U.D.S. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation made in the FIR, LUCC company received deposits through its agents from the common public but did not return their money and during investigation, applicant has also been made accused in the present matter on the ground that he was also agent of LUCC company. He further submitted that if through agent of the company common public deposited amount in the company and subsequently company fails to repay the amount then agent cannot held liable for that.

¶9

He further submitted that except the allegation that applicant is the agent of the company, there is no specific allegation against him.

¶10

He further submitted that co-accused Mahesh Prasad Rajak, who was also one of the agent of the company has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3076 of 2025 and of facts, case of applicant is at par with him.

¶11

He further submitted that however, applicant was not having any previous criminal history but subsequent to the present matter, he

¶12

was also made accused in as many as 9 other cases with similar allegations and criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.

¶13

He further submitted that, however, in the present matter applicant has also been challened for the offense under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no cogent evidence of organized crime against him.

¶14

He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

¶15

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

¶16

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, as per allegation, applicant is the agent of LUCC company and he and other agents of the company deposited the amount of investors of the company and subsequently, investors could not receive their maturity amount but considering the fact that applicant is agent of the company, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

¶18

Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 9 other cases but it appears that applicant was not having any previous criminal history and subsequent to the present case, he has been made accused in all these cases on the basis of similar allegation. Further, criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.

¶19

Further, in the present matter, applicant has also been challened for the offense under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but it appears that except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no cogent evidence against him on record with regard to offense under Section 111 BNS.

¶20

Further, co-accused Mahesh Prasad Rajak has already been released on bail by this Court and case of applicant is at par with him.

¶21

Further, in the present matter, applicants are in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Let the applicant- Mansingh 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 KK Patel

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mansingh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansingh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivpratap @ Rahul vs State of U.P.

Shafeeq Alias Gatua vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra Verma vs State of U.P.

Vishal Pandey vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Aalam vs State of U.P. and Another

Mulayam Yadav vs State of U.P.