Raghvendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24777 of 2025

Raghvendra Singh

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Vijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Raghvendra Singh with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 647 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 61 (2), 336 (3), 340 (2), 352, 351 (2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/21 of Banning of Unregulated deposit Scheme Act, 2019, Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a first information report was lodged by one Dhaniram Ahirwar, against five named persons namely Man Singh, Ashok Kumar Ahirwar, Ravi Tiwari, Alok Jain and Hardev Patel with the allegation that the first informant and some other persons have deposited money on assurance of being doubled in a period of five years and after completion of five years when the first informant and other persons demanded their money all the accused persons threaten the first informant and other persons for dire consequences. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that neither the applicant was named in the First Information Report nor his name has been surfaced in the statement of the first informant or in the statement of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name of the applicant has been surfaced in the G.D. entry No. 53 as one of the Director of Society. He further submits that the real fact is that the

¶10

BAIL No. 24777 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

applicant was appointed in the society namely LUCC Company (The Loni Urban Multistate credit and Thrift Cooperative Society) as a computer Operator on the salary of Rs. 11,000/- per month and the documents submitted by the applicant, at the time of appointment in the society, were being misused by the Society and the applicant has been shown as one of the Director of the Society. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant was arrested on 25.04.2025 without intimating him the reason of his arrest and the column of reason of arrest has been left blank by the Investigating Officer, which is violation of Article 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and on the said ground the Special Judge BUDS has released the co-accused Anurag Bansal and Arti Bansal vide order dated 22.07.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2025 AIR (SC) 1388 . Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that several other coaccused persons, whose name has been surfaced during the course of investigation have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal misc. Bail Application Nos. 4866 of 2025, 9917 of 2025, 4813 of 2025, 2683 of 2025 vide orders dated 02.05.2025, 02.04.2025, 12.05.2025, and 27.02.2025, respectively. Criminal history of seven cases has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of bail application and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant is one of the Director of Company and he is continuously indulging in same nature of the crime of duping money of innocent persons. He further submits that the aforesaid co-accused, who have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court were agents of the company whereas, the applicant is one of the Director of the Company. He further submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents of seven cases, which has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of bail application but the nature of the cases are same and in one case charge sheet has been filed against the applicant. He further submits that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

BAIL No. 24777 of 2025

¶15

3

¶16

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Raghvendra Singh , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶19

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶20

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶21

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶22

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶23

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

August 23, 2025

¶25

Deepak/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghvendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases