Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2020 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) not tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) not pressurize prosecution witnesses; (iii) appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, booked in Case Crime No. 105 of 2020 under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C. (P.S. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow) and in custody since 17.10.2020 without charges having been framed or trial commenced, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Since the purpose of keeping an under-trial in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial, and the trial had not commenced even after more than four years of custody (with charges not even framed), the court held these facts sufficient to justify enlarging the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2020.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava - Case Crime No. 105 of 2020, Sections 409, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow (non-payment of returns on investment in a project of Shine City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.). Applicant, formerly Additional Director of the company (17.03.2016 to 05.12.2019), pleaded false implication and absence of criminal history; roped in more than 159 F.I.R.s relating to the same company and already granted bail in about 70 cases. State counsel opposed on ground of large-scale financial fraud but did not refute that the applicant had been languishing in jail since 17.10.2020 with charges not framed and trial not commenced after more than four years. Held (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.: ratio): as the purpose of custody is to ensure the under-trial's availability to face trial, such prolonged pre-trial detention constitutes sufficient ground for enlargement on bail. Applicant ordered released on personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions of not tampering with prosecution evidence, not pressurizing prosecution witnesses, and appearing on every date fixed by the trial court. Single judge bench; order dated 2.4.2025; Court No. 15; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:18352.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18352

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2744 of 2025

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

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

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.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.105 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

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:-

(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.

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 -Amit K-

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