Chandan Sharma @ Chandan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11053 of 2025

¶3

Chandan Sharma @ Chandan Kumar Sharma

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lakshmi Kant Tripathi, Priya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

1. Heard Ms. Priya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶11

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the applicant along with the coaccused persons have got deposited crores of rupees in the company after misguiding the complainant and other investors and the money is allegedly withdrawn by the applicant in his account and spent for his personal use.

¶12

3. Ms. Priya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence is triable by Magistrate. The applicant has explained previous criminal history of two cases in para 9 of the bail application. It is submitted that the offence under sections 316(2) and 318(4) BNS cannot be made out in the single transaction. In support of her contention, learned counsel has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) and others versus State of U.P. and another (2024)10 SCC 690.

¶13

It is further submitted that the co-accused persons Shri Anand Kumar Yadav and Minakshi and others have been granted interim protection by a Division Bench of this Court. The writ petitions are pending. The orders of interim protection have been filed along with the bail application as Annexure No.5 jointly. The applicant is in jail since 24.8.2025.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of

¶15

BAIL No. 11053 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

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.

¶18

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the investigation is pending.

¶19

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history in the bail application, the coaccused, referred to above, have been granted protection from arrest by the Division Bench of this court, undertaking given by the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation, the offence is triable by Magistrate, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

6. Let the applicant Chandan Sharma alias Chandan Kumar Sharma, involved in Case Crime No.0129 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 319(2), 316(2), 316(5) BNS, 66-D of I.T. Act, P.S. Cyber Crime Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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

¶25

BAIL No. 11053 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

accordance with law.

¶28

(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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶29

(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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

¶30

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial.

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

November 13, 2025 kkb/

¶34

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandan Sharma @ Chandan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Sharma @ Chandan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Aayush @ Bauva Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepak Pal Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Kamal Kutil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Liyakat Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.