Allowed¶13

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

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2025BAIL/12685/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted to sales agent in cheating/criminal breach of trust case (Shine City) after 13 months incarceration without charge framing. Court emphasized delay in framing charges as ground for bail. Conditions imposed under Sections 229A IPC, 82/174-A Cr.P.C., 313 Cr.P.C. for non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to six conditions. ¶13

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47889

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12685 of 2024

¶4

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.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

This case is nominated to this Court by Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 19.03.2025.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.581 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 15.7.2024. He has further submitted that applicant was working as a sales agent for the company and all the alleged amount was deposited in the account of M/S Shine City, only commission was transferred in his account by the company. It is further submitted that applicant was taken into custody in the year 2020 with the allegation that his involvement was found in 13 cases of identical in nature and charge sheet under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. has already been filed by the Investigating Officer on the basis of photo copy of the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but till today, charge has not been framed against the applicant. He also submits that trial of the offences under Section 409 & 420 I.P.C. cannot run together. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but they do not dispute this fact that applicant was working as sales agent and only commission was paid to him by the company.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material available on record, contents of F.I.R. & master counter affidavit filed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10571 of 2024, other relevant documents, nature of offence as well as facts and

¶12

circumstances of the case, it is evident that applicant is in jail since 15.7.2024 but till today, charge has not been framed, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Let applicant - Gyan Prakash Upadhyay - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(ii) 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

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 14.8.2025. Rks.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shivraj Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ravi Prakash and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Saddam Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Puneet Kumar Alias Puneet Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another