Allowed

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2025BAIL/2738/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a large-scale financial fraud case concerning Shine City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The applicant had been in custody over four years without trial commencement; bail was granted on personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18346

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2738 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Mitra Anand,Utkarsh Anand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Desh Mitra Anand, learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Asif Khan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.573 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. alleging that the informant had made some investment in a Project of Shine City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Company but no return was paid on his investment.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been stated that the applicant was an Additional Director of the Company since 17.03.2016 and he had resigned from the aforesaid position on 05.12.2019. It has further been stated in the affidavit that the applicant had no previous criminal history but as per his knowledge, he has been roped in more than 159 F.I.R.s registered under different police stations and the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the F.I.R.s relate to disputes regarding Shine City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Company only.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been granted bail in about 70 cases.

¶11

Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the applicant is involved in a large scale financial fraud affecting a very large number of persons and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. However, he could not refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that although the applicant is

¶12

languishing in jail since 17.10.2020, even charges have not been framed till date.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the purpose of keeping an under trial person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and the trial has not even commenced in spite of a period of more than four years has been elapsed since the applicant was taken into custody, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 -Amit K-

¶19

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

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shadab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shikha Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Faiz @ Faiz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.