Amit Kumar Nigam vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35569 of 2025

Amit Kumar Nigam

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Harsh Tiwari, Vimlendu Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in pursuance of order dated 14.10.2025 is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Amit Kumar Nigam with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.242 of 2024, under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420 and 409 IPC, Police Station Kabrai, District Mahoba, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the fact regarding criminal offence as alleged in the first information report has not been attributed to the applicant. Applicant was manager of Indian Bank, Branch Kabrai, Hamirpur and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It has been stated that amount of Rs.63,72,000/- (Rs.63 lakh and 72 thousand only) was embezzled but it is admitted fact that Rs.48,19,920/- has already been deposited in the concerned bank and the fact has been verified by learned A.G.A.. From perusal of the relevant record, it appears that the bank issued certificate regarding the above fact and the bank has recovered Rs.48.20 lakh from the applicant and reimbursed following customers namely Mangali Prasad, Shreekanti, Susheela Sahu, Raghav Ji Granite, Sonal Gupta and Pushpa Devi. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall deposit remaining amount of Rs.15,52080/- as mentioned in para 36 of the bail application. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 22.05.2025. It is

¶11

BAIL No. 35569 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

further submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted on 19.08.2025, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; period of detention in jail, keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶16

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials 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 a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶20

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in

¶21

BAIL No. 35569 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶24

(v) 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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

November 3, 2025 Asha

¶28

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar Nigam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Nigam 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

Padam Singh @ Rahul vs State of U.P.

Devendra Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P.

Diksha Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Tahir Khan vs State of U.P.

Pushkar Madhesiya vs State of U.P.

Rohan Singh vs State of U.P.