Dwarika Prasad Jha vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48171

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10838 of 2025

Applicant :- Dwarika Prasad Jha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Sharma,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant 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 and Section 3/21 Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted 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 also agent of the LUCC company, which duped the common public. He further submitted that as per allegation, even after receiving deposits from the investor through its agents, LUCC company did not repay the amount. It is next submitted, as applicant is agent of the company, therefore, he cannot be held liable if subsequently company failed to return the maturity amount to its investor.

¶9

He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of twelve other cases but he was having previous criminal history of only one case and in that case, he has been acquitted and in remaining cases, he has been made accused along with present matter with similar allegations.

¶10

He further submit that however, in the present matter applicant has also been challaned for the offense under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but there is no evidence of organized crime against the applicant.

¶11

He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail

¶12

since 16.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

However, as per allegation, LUCC company after receiving deposits from its investor through agents did not return their money and applicant is agent of the company and on this ground, he has been made accused in the present matter during investigation but considering this fact, submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that only being agent of the company, applicant cannot be held liable, if subsequently company failed to repay the amount, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

¶16

Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of twelve other cases but he was having previous criminal history of only one case and in that case, he has been acquitted and in remaining cases, he has been made accused along with present matter with similar allegations.

¶17

Further, in the present matter, applicant has also been challaned 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 evidence against him on record with regard to offense under Section 111 BNS.

¶18

Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 16.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Let the applicant- Dwarika Prasad Jha 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 KK Patel

¶28

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

Dwarika Prasad Jha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Prasad Jha 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

Chhotey Alias Badshah vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Singh vs State of U.P.

Balvinder Alias Mataru vs State of U.P.

Ankit Dixit vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Shukla vs State of U.P.