Kishu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23549

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1436 of 2025

Applicant :- Kishu Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shreet Raj Jaiswal,Siddhartha Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep,Nagendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr Raghav Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Nagendra Singh, learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.317 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC & Section 66(D) of I. T Act, P.S.Mohanlgalganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of F.I.R. in which the applicant is not nominated, allegation levelled is that the informant was duped in receiving advertisement for investment online for the purpose of applying for petrol retailer-ship of the company concerned. It has been indicated that on account of misleading advertisements, the applicant invested substantial sum of money through cheque in various accounts which were informed to him through on line site.

¶9

It has been submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that except for an alleged confessional statement of co-accused, there is no recovery from the applicant either of any computer system or even of any amount being transferred into his account. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 23.09.2024 without any previous criminal history. It is also submitted that co-accused Sintu Kumar has also been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.890 of 2025.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed bail application with the submission that it is on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sintu Kumar that the applicant was taken into custody. Learned counsel for

¶11

complainant submits that the applicant is a member of gang which is actively involved in posting misleading advertisements in order to defraud.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, perusal of material available on record and prima facie subject to further evidence being led during trial, it appears that the applicant is not nominated in the FIR and has been taken into custody on the basis of alleged confessional statement of Sintu Kumar, who has already been enlarged on bail as indicated hereinabove. At present, there does not appear to be any recovery of any electrical equipment which may be directly linked the allegation levelled against the applicant. There also does not appear to any amount paid directly in the account of applicant. The applicant is under incarceration since 23.9.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶13

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶14

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let applicant, Kishu Kumar involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) 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

(ii) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the

¶19

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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Renu/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kishu Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishu Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another

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

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

Raju Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Anuj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ranjeet Pandey vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat

Kishu Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another

Yawar Ali Khan Nanhan Zariwala Mohammed Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another