Allowed

Sandeep Maitee v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025BAIL/11970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed; applicant Sandeep Maitee; Case Crime No. 490 of 2020; Sections 34, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C.; Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow; F.I.R. re investments in M/s Vishwas Trading Company with no return paid; applicant was company employee; bail already granted in 10 similar cases; involvement in 31 other similar cases disclosed in affidavit par

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant Sandeep Maitee on bail in Case Crime No.490 of 2020 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerne

Sandeep Maitee Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11970 of 2024

¶3

Sandeep Maitee

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Krishna Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Mayank Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.490 of 2020, under Sections 34, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged against several accused persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant has made investments in M/s Vishwas Trading Company in which the applicant was an employee and no return was paid on the investments.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in 31 other cases of similar nature has been disclosed in para 16 of the affidavit.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail in 10 other cases of similar nature and the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.06.2020 and as per his information, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined till date.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for

¶15

BAIL No. 11970 of 2024

¶16

¶17

enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant - Sandeep Maitee - be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶23

September 8, 2025 S. Shivhare

¶24

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Maitee v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Maitee v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Singh Alias Nankulli Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sharwan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Pinki Thru. Her Husband Shailendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt.Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Sajivan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sandeep Maitee vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Sandeep Maitee vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko