Gyan Prakash Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42660

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11429 of 2024

Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Nath Singh,Prateek Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Singh Vishen

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not a Director nor a signatory authority of the Company. He is not aware of the details of the properties sold by M/s Shine City Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. Company. The alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate. It is next submitted that the co-accused Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava and Meera Srivastava, who are the Directors of the company, have already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 8.5.2025 and 21.6.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 1005 of 2025 and 6547 of 2024. Therefore, the present applicant claims parity.

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant has duly explained the criminal history of 39 cases in para Nos. 21 and 22 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 15.7.2024. Till date, charges in the case have not been framed. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the offences are triable by a Magistrate; the co-accused Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava and Meera Srivastava, who are the Directors of the company, have already been granted bail; the applicant has duly explained the criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 15.7.2024; till date, charges in the case have not been framed; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant- Gyan Prakash Upadhyay involved in Case Crime No. 111 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 accordance with law.

¶17

(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 in accordance with law.

¶18

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Shravan

¶20

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

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Mohammad Aleem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Bhikhna and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Lavlesh Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar Kori @ Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Anil Kumar Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Awadhesh @ Awadhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another