Allowed

Mahesh Prasad Rajak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2025BAIL/1209/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under multiple sections of the BNS and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, the Allahabad High Court allowed release. The applicant, an alleged agent not named in the FIR, argued lack of liability and no cogent evidence for organized crime charges. The court noted a co-accused named in the FIR was already on bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Mahesh Prasad Rajak vs State of U.P. — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23096

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1209 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mahesh Prasad Rajak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2024, under Sections 111(3), 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) BNS and 3/21 Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, Police Station Jakhaura, District Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, as per allegation LUCC Company after receiving deposit from its agent did not return the same to its investors.

¶9

He further submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation being one of the agent of the company he has been made accused in the present matter.

¶10

He next submits if after receiving deposits from its agent company did not return the amount to its investors then agent cannot be held liable.

¶11

He further submitted that applicant was not having any previous criminal history but along with the present case he has also been made accused in 11 other cases with similar allegations. He next submits entire criminal hisotry of the applicant have been explained in the instant bail application..

¶12

He further submits, however applicant has also been challaned for offence under 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but there is no cogent evidence against him in this regard.

¶13

He further submits co-accused Vinod Srivastava, who was even named in the FIR has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 240 of 2025 and on facts case of applicant is at par with him.

¶14

He further submits in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 27.09.2024..

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

It appears applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that he is one of the agent of LUCC Company who duped the common public. Considering this fact the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that being agent of company applicant cannot be held liable, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶18

Further, however it appears that apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of 11 other cases but he was not having any previous criminal history and it reflects along with the present case he has been made accused in all these cases with similar allegations and entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.

¶19

Further, however applicant has also been challaned for organized crime but this court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence against him for offence under Section 111 B.N.S..

¶20

Further co-accused Vinod Srivastava, who was also agent of the company and was even named in the FIR has already been released on bail by this Court.

¶21

Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 27.09.2024..

¶22

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

¶23

Let the applicant-Mahesh Prasad Rajak, 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:-

¶24

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

¶25

(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 disclosingsuch facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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..

¶29

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Neeraj

¶30

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahesh Prasad Rajak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Prasad Rajak v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Ashish vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh Sahu vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Ali vs State of U.P.

Imran vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P.(Lucknow)

Rajaram vs State of U.P.

Kamaluddin Alias Kamal vs State of U.P.