Vishwanath Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29388 of 2025

Vishwanath Pratap Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : A Kumar Srivastava, Manish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The informant booked a flat in the company through a broker of the company who is named in the F.I.R. There is no allegation against the applicant that he convinced the informant to book flat nor he received any money from the investor. The applicant was only a simple employee of the Company. Against the responsible officers of the Company about 48 first information reports have been registered. During the course of investigation in all 48 cases applicant has been implicated falsely. One other co-accused, Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, who was also associated with the said company, has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24293 of 2024. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.The applicant is in jail since 08.11.2022.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on

¶11

BAIL No. 29388 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Vishwanath Pratap Singh, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 700 of 2017, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Farah, District- Mathura, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶16

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶19

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶22

September 10, 2025 Mustaqeem.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Pratap 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