Allowed

Niraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025BAIL/38750/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by an accused in a crop-insurance fraud case under BNS cheating and forgery provisions. The applicant was unnamed in the FIR, named later during investigation, and co-accused had been granted bail. Considering trial delay, jail overcrowding and parity, the court granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions on conduct, attendance and non-tampering.

Niraj vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38750 of 2025

Niraj

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anand Dwivedi, Sanjay Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Niraj seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.387 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali (Mahoba), District Mahoba.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2025. It is submitted that only accused Nikhil Chaturvedi is named in the FIR whereas applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that name of applicant was surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of false information given to the I.O. It is argued that the role assigned to the applicant is only of uploading the relevant documents for the purpose of P.M. Fasal Bima Yojna on the website and he is not the real beneficiary of the fraud transaction. It is further argued that co-accused Ravindra, Sangam Srivas and Madanpal have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.11.2025, 07.11.2025 and 10.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.38903 of 2025, 35596 of 2025 and 39089 of 2025 respectively and parity is sought in the matter. It is lastly submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering

¶10

BAIL No. 38750 of 2025

¶11

¶12

with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶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 the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and 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 personal bond and two sureties 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 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.

¶17

(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 IPC/269 BNS.

¶18

(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 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS.

¶19

(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 of B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without

¶20

BAIL No. 38750 of 2025

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

November 21, 2025 Asha

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

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

Niraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivkumar Bind vs State of U. P.

Mrs. Mamta Pal vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P.

Rihan vs State of U.P.

Jwala Yadav Alias Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Lakhan vs State of U.P.