Akhil Kumar @ Akhil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30221

Court No. - 17

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10873 of 2024

Applicant :- Akhil Kumar @ Akhil Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.759 of 2021 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 05.09.2024. He further submitted that the amount in question was transferred in the account of applicant by the complainant which was later on transferred in the account of M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and the sale deed was also executed by M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the complainant and thereafter, the possession was handed over but due to some criminal act of the aforesaid company, several FIRs were lodged, as a result, FIR of case in question was also lodged by the complainant dragging the name of applicant. He further submitted that the applicant has not received a single penny for his personal interest and the entire amount i.e Rs.16,14,816/-, which was paid by the complainant, was transferred in the account of company on 28.01.2017 through RTGS. He further submitted that applicant was also implicated in another case of identical nature. He further submitted that charge sheet has already been filed but till today, charge has not been framed and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail and submitted that applicant was not cooperating in the investigation and he was absconding, thereafter, proceeding U/S 82 and 83 CrPC was issued but they did not dispute this fact that the applicant is in jail since 05.09.2024 and till today, charge has not been framed.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., supplementary affidavit, other relevant documents as well as totality of fact and circumstances, it is evident that the amount, which is mentioned as sale consideration, was transmitted in the account of M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, the sale deed was executed in favour of complainant. It is also evident that the applicant is in jail since 05.09.2024 and the charge sheet has already been filed but till today, charge has not been framed. Therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let applicant - Akhil Kumar @ Akhil Kumar Yadav - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶17

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section

¶18

82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 V. Sinha

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhil Kumar @ Akhil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil Kumar @ Akhil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Deepak Kapoor and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sarla Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko and Another

Hanuman Prasad Verma and Another vs Shri Manoj Kumar Sonkar Conservator of Forest Devi Patan Circle U.P. Gonda

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Gaya Prasad Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Shyam Sunder Rai, Thru. His Daughter Anchal Rai vs Shri Sanjay Prasad Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.