Prince Srivastava vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1503 of 2025

Applicant :- Prince Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahmudul Hasan,Mansoor Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J .

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sashikant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 (Prince Srivastava Vs. State of U .P.).

¶8

The second bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court for want of prosecution vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 44068 of 2024 (Prince Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.).

¶9

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Prince Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 93 of 2024, under Section 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.

¶10

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 09.04.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is no verification of the alleged recovered notes till date and as such conclusion should be drawn that the notes are planted. It is further submitted that there is no public witness to the alleged recovery. It is further submitted while placing Paragraph No. 33 that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Further learned counsel has repeatedly

¶12

submitted that an innocent person has been implicated in the present matter and is behind bars. It is next submitted that applicant is in jail since 09.04.2024 but till date trial has not started and even charge has not been framed.

¶13

Per contra , learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court by a detailed order on merits. It is submitted that the recovery from the possession of the applicant is of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs) as per the documents, which is totally unexplained and is a huge recovery. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to show as to the status of the trial. It is submitted that further question of verification of the notes and the dispute therein and further the person claiming it shall be considered at the stage of trial at the appropriate stage. It is further submitted that there is huge recovery of notes from the possession of the applicant which in no manner can be planted and submitted that the present bail application be rejected.

¶14

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024, the same reads as under:-

¶15

"1. List revised.

¶16

2. Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶17

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Prince Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.93 of 2024, under Section(s) 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur.

¶18

4. A First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 09.4.2024, at 05:52 hours, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act by Naveen Kumar Srivastava against Sub-Inspector Alok Singh, Prince Srivastava (the present applicant) and 02-03 other associates alleging therein that he is a businessman and in the evening collects money with relation to his business and comes back home in the late evening and then on the next day deposits it in the bank and like each day on 03.04.2024 he had collected Rs.50 lakh and was coming with a bag wherein at about 06:00 a.m. he and his brother Gagan Kumar Srivastava were stopped by Alok Singh and 3-4 people in plain clothes who asked him about the bag on which he told them that there is Rs.50 lakh in the same, on which there was some commotion and then Sub Inspector took the money from him and told that he is traveling without permission during election time with huge money and he

¶19

would implicate him in a case of theft and loot. The money was counted which was found to be Rs.50 lakh. He then pleaded that the money is his and may be returned, on which they stated to get it inquired and then return it to him. Prince Srivastava then told Inspector that he would talk to them and took them outside and told them that if they want to be saved then they should tell the Sub Inspector to make an inquiry and then return money to them. They then requested Sub Inspector about it who detained the money and told them to come on the next day. They then contacted him where the applicant was also present after which they were threatened and Sub Inspector told him that they would not get the money back and threatened them. They returned back home and told the family members about it who then encouraged him and told that a complaint before the higher authority be made, after which they came to the police station. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶20

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged money but he has been implicated in the matter on the basis of information given by the police informer. It is submitted that the alleged money shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is a totally false recovery. The applicant is not a police personnnel. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has not been convicted by any court of law, paragraph no. 25 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.04.2024.

¶21

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in the matter. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested and Rs.14 lakh was recovered from his possession. It is submitted that at the time of arrest of the applicant, Sub Inspector Alok Singh was also arrested and Rs.30 lakh was also recovered from his possession. It is submitted that even the applicant has not claimed the said money. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in the present case and such no ground for bail in his favour is made out.

¶22

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. The first informant and his brother were carrying money which they had collected out of their business which was detained by Sub Inspector Alok Singh who is a co-accused in presence of the applicant who then tried to intervene and get the matter settled. The money was detained by Sub-Inspector and the first informant was told to come on the next day. On the next day the money was not returned to him but to the contrary he was threatened by Sub Inspector and the applicant. Subsequently on 09.4.2024 on the information of police informer Sub Inspector Alok Singh and the applicant were apprehended and from possession of Alok Singh Rs.30 lakh was recovered whereas from possession of the applicant Rs.14 lakh was recovered. The recovery is of huge amount of money. Implication and false recovery of such huge amount is not possible. There is no credible explanation from the side of the applicant regarding the huge amount of money recovered from his possession.

¶23

8. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence and the huge amount of money recovered from the possession of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶24

9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected."

¶25

The second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 02.12.2024, the same reads as under:-

¶26

"1. List revised.

¶27

2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application. Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State is present.

¶28

3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Prince Srivastava, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 93 of 2024, under Sections 379, 406, 420, 506, 411, 389, 120-B IPC and Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.

¶29

4. The first bail application being Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 21814 of 2024 (Prince Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024.

¶30

5. Today despite the matter being taken up in the revised list, there is no representation from the side of the applicant or from the side of the first informant to press this bail application.

¶31

6. It appears that learned counsel for the applicant has lost interest in the matter.

¶32

7. In view of the above, the present bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution."

¶33

The third bail application is on the ground of fact that there is no verification of the notes, there is no public witness and there is false implication of the applicant. These facts were available at the time of the decision of the first bail application and have been considered. The recovery from the possession of the applicant is of Rs. 14,00,000 (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs) which is a huge amount. In so far as the status of the trial is concerned, there is nothing on record to show the same. There is no fresh and new ground in the present bail application, hence the bail application is rejected .

¶34

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶35

Order Date :- 1.4.2025 VS

¶36

(Samit Gopal, J)

¶37

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

Prince Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mithlesh vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rajabai vs State of U.P.

Srikant Singh vs State of U.P.

Tarun Kapoor vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalimullah Ansari vs State of U.P. and 4 Others..