Nikhil Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10656

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12339 of 2023

Applicant :- Nikhil Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Kishan Tiwari,Rohit Shukla,Shrayansh Verma,Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Salma Bano,Shresth Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

This is second bail application filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 201 of 2021 under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station, Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶8

The first Bail Application No. 393 of 2022 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was director in the said company, but he has resigned from the said company. It is further submitted that due to changed circumstances, the money amounting to Rs.79,47,552/- could not be returned to the complainant as well as other persons. It is also submitted that till today, examination-in-chief of only one witness has been completed. It is next submitted that involvement of the applicant is shown in 29 identical cases, out of which, he is on bail in 25 cases.

¶10

Drawing the attention of the Court towards paras 5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit dated 16.05.2024 duly sworn by the father of the applicant-Mr. Harishchandra Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the applicant is ready to return the aforesaid amount of Rs.79,47,552/- to the complainant within 12 months from the date of his release. It is, thus, submitted

¶11

that as he is willing to refund the aforesaid amount, the applicant, who is in jail since 23.11.2019, may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection, in case, the applicant is ready to refund the amount of Rs.79,47,552/-, as mentioned in supplementary affidavit dated 16.05.2024 and consents that the applicant may be enlarged on bail in terms of averments made in paras 5 and 6 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit dated 16.05.2024.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that after investigation, sufficient evidences were found against the applicant and, therefore, the charge-sheet has been filed by Investigating Officer.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the bail application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, including the supplementary affidavit dated 16.05.2024, it is evident that the applicant is in jail since 23.11.2019, but till today, examination-in-chief of only one witness has been completed. It is also evident that the applicant is willing to refund the amount of Rs.79,47,552/- to the complainant within a period of 12 months from the date of his release, therefore, it is a fit case for bail.

¶15

The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Nikhil Kushwaha who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions:

¶17

(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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶19

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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 229A IPC.

¶22

(v) 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., 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.

¶23

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for 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.

¶24

(vii) The applicant shall refund the amount of Rs. Rs.79,47,552/- within 12 months from the date of his release, as mentioned in the supplementary affidavit dated 16.05.2024.

¶25

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

¶26

However, it is open to the complainant to file bail cancellation application, if the said amount is not refunded within a period of 12 months from the date of release of the applicant.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 VKS

¶28

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

Nikhil Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

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

Similar cases

Kartik Thru. His Mother Smt. Anshika Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Mohammad Faisal Wasi Alias Mohammad Faizal Wasim and Another vs Mr. Vivek Srivastava Posted as Secy. Lko. Development Authority Gomti Nagar Lko.

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shubham Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vimla Devi and Ors. vs S.B.I.General Insurance Company Ltd.Throu.Manager and Ors.

Mr. Dipen Paragkumar Shah vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another