Allowed

Ram Naresh Sahu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025BAIL/3484/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by an alleged agent of the LUCC company accused of offences including organised crime under Section 111 BNS. The court found no cogent evidence on organised crime, noted parity with a released co-accused agent and over six months' incarceration, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ram Naresh Sahu released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial appearance and non-tampering with evidence.

Ram Naresh Sahu Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25191

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3484 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Naresh Sahu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughna Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.688 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 336(3), 61(2), 340(2) BNS and 3/21 Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, only being one of the agent of the LUCC company applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶9

He further submitted that if through an agent of the company, any person deposited money in the company and subsequently company fails to return the money then agent of the company cannot be held responsible for that.

¶10

He further submitted that applicant was not having any previous criminal history but simultaneously along with present matter, he has been made accused in as many as nine other cases with the similar allegation. He further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.

¶11

He further submitted that however, applicant has also been challenged for the offence under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but there is no evidence in this regard against the applicant on record.

¶12

He further submits that co-accused Satish Chandra Jain who was also agent of the company has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 and on facts case of applicant is

¶13

almost at par with him.

¶14

He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17.08.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

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

¶17

Considering the fact that applicant was only agent of LUCC company, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

¶18

Further, however apart from the present case, it reflects that applicant is having criminal history of nine other cases but he was not having any previous criminal history and from perusal of his criminal history, it reflects that along with the present matter, he has been made accused in all these cases with similar allegation.

¶19

Further, however, in the present matter, applicant has also been challaned for the offence under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record with regard to offence under Section 111 BNS.

¶20

Further, co-accused Satish Chandra Jain who was also agent of the company has already been released on bail by this Court.

¶21

Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Let the applicant- Ram Naresh Sahu 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 S.A.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Naresh Sahu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Sahu v. State of U.P.

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