Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 157 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS & Section 13(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Junior Clerk in District Cooperative Development Sugarcane Society, Hapur and he was not named in the FIR but during investigation through the statement of principal accused, who was named in the FIR namely Bharat Kashyap, he has been made accused in the present matter.

¶12

He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects, Bharat Kashyap was the in-charge accountant of samiti and he along with other family members misappropriated huge public fund of more than Rs. seven crores and when he approached this Court and filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11563 of 2025 then Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay his arrest.

¶13

He further submitted that even other named accused persons also when approached this Court in writ jurisdiction then their arrest have also been stayed by Division Bench of this Court.

¶14

BAIL No. 30758 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

He further submitted that from the record, it reflects, in the account of coaccused Bharat Kashyap huge public money was found but he got the stay order in his favour and considering this fact, applicant, who was not even named in the FIR, may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, in the account of applicant Rs. 22 lakhs were found but even as per prosecution, the alleged money was transferred by co-accused Bharat Kashyap in the account of applicant.

¶18

He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 31.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

¶19

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however, applicant was not named in the FIR but he along with other named accused persons misappropriated public fund of more than Rs. 7 crores and Rs. 22 lakhs were also transferred in his account but could not dispute the fact that principal accused in the present matter appears to be co-accused Bharat Kashyap and majority of the money was transferred in his account and his arrest has been stayed by Division Bench of this Court vide Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11563 of 2025. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail in the present matter since July, 2025.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶21

However, as per allegation, applicant and other accused persons misappropriated public fund of more than Rs. 7 crores and Rs. 22 lakhs were also transferred in the account of the applicant from the account of samiti but it reflects, applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, through the statement of co-accused Bharat Kashyap, who appears to be principal accused and was named in the FIR, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶22

Record also suggests that in the account of co-accused Bharat, in-charge accountant of samiti, huge amount was found but when he approached this

¶23

BAIL No. 30758 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

Court in writ petition challenging the FIR of the present case then Division Bench of this Court on 03.06.2025 was pleased to stay his arrest and order passed by Division Bench of this Court has been annexed at page no. 45 of the paper book.

¶26

Record further suggests that even when other named accused persons approached this Court and filed separate writ petitions then Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay their arrest and case of applicant is at better footing than them. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as arrest of named accused persons have been stayed by this Court, therefore, considering this fact, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶27

Further, investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 31.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

¶28

Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

¶29

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶31

Let the applicant- Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Agrawal be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶33

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

¶34

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶35

BAIL No. 30758 of 2025

¶36

4

¶37

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶38

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶39

September 23, 2025 KK Patel

¶40

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶41

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Agrawal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Agrawal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases