Rahul Dixit vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35164 of 2025

Rahul Dixit

	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manvendra Tiwari	Narain	Pathak, Sanjay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA, Shri Purshottam Maurya, for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Rahul Dixit with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2025, under Sections 318(2), 336(3), 338 of BNS, Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that applicant has not committed any fraud against the informant. He further submits that accused applicant is spiritual preacher and as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R. accused applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have misappropriated amount of Rs. 29,75,297/- by way of providing fake HDFC Life Insurance policy to the informant and his family, the aforesaid amount is said to have credited in different accounts which belong to the accused applicant and other co-accused. He further submits that there is no reliable evidence is on record which substantiate the fact that which kind of document has been prepared by the accused applicant in this case. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in

¶10

BAIL No. 35164 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

the F.I.R. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that there is criminal history of applicant and the same has been explained in para no. 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has 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. Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.08.2025.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently 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 deserve any indulgence. He further contended that charge-sheet has already been filed against the accused applicant, whereas investigation is going on against the other co-accused.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two heavy surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall

¶17

BAIL No. 35164 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶22

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶24

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

December 8, 2025 Bhanu

¶27

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Dixit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Dixit 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

Monu vs State of U.P.

Awadesh Kumar Agrahari vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chandra Katiyar vs State of U.P.

Devendra Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P.

Diksha Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Ramkishan vs State of U.P.