Allowed¶22

Atul Kulshreshtha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2025BAIL/43974/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; Sections 420, 409 IPC; cooperative society fraud; Kamuna Credit Cooperative Society Limited; Managing Director appointed after alleged misappropriation; no specific role assigned; parity with co-accused Kuldeep Chauhan; statements under Section 180 BNSS; Article 21; Manish Sisodia para 53; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb; Satender Kumar Antil; criminal history 21 cases; Allahabad High Court; Santosh Rai, J.; December 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail of applicant Atul Kulshreshtha in Case Crime No. 81 of 2022 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(v), with identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before acceptance of bonds. ¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether accused-applicant Atul Kulshreshtha is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2022 under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, Police Station Bhatni, District Deoria.

¶13

Court's answer

The bail application is allowed: finding force in the submissions of counsel for the applicant, and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, the larger mandate of Article 21, and the Apex Court dicta in Manish Sisodia (para 53), Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil, the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Bail is subject to conditions: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses; shall give an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, personally or as directed, including at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the accused's statement; and misuse of bail liberty shall invite strict proceedings by the trial court to secure his presence.

¶23

Key takeaways

Breach of any of the bail conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.ratio¶28
Personal appearance of In-charge D.C.R.B., Deoria and the I.O. is exempted till any further order.obiter¶11
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and the sureties must be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Santosh Rai, J.) granted regular bail to Atul Kulshreshtha in Case Crime No. 81 of 2022, Sections 420/409 IPC, P.S. Bhatni, District Deoria (Kamuna Credit Cooperative Society Limited matter). Counsel argued that the applicant was appointed Managing Director only on 5.10.2020, after the arrest and removal of erstwhile C.M.D. Pradeep Asthana, that the alleged misappropriation and non-payment of maturity amounts predated his tenure, that no specific role in embezzlement was assigned to him in the FIR or in investors' statements under Section 180 B.N.S.S., and that co-accused Kuldeep Chauhan was already enlarged on bail on 7.4.2025 in Bail Application No. 9859 of 2025; the applicant's criminal history of 21 cases was said to be explained in para 41 of the bail affidavit. Relying on Manish Sisodia (para 53), Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court released the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties, imposing standard conditions; breach was made a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43974 of 2025

Atul Kulshreshtha

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Kunal Shah
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 70

¶8

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶9

In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 12.12.2025, Sushil Kumar, S.O., and In-charge D.C.R.B., Deoria are present, in person, before this Court.

¶10

Personal affidavits filed by In-charge D.C.R.B., Deoria and I.O., in the Court today, are taken on record.

¶11

Personal appearance of In-charge D.C.R.B., Deoria and I.O. is exempted, till any further order.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶13

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Atul Kulshreshtha seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.81 of 2022, under Sections 420, 409 IPC, Police Station Bhatni, District Deoria.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any fraud with the informant or any other person as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 30.9.2025. It is submitted that co-accused Pradeep Asthana, who is named in the FIR was C.M.D. of Kamuna Credit Cooperative Society Limited but after his arrest on 5.10.2020, he was removed from Committee of Management of the society and applicant was appointed as Managing Director of the aforesaid society on 5.10.2020, therefore, applicant has no liability for alleged financial irregularities, non-payment of maturity amounts, fraudulent activities which took place under the tenure of previous

¶15

BAIL No. 43974 of 2025

¶16

¶17

management headed by C.M.D. Pradeep Asthana. It is further submitted that applicant has entered the management of the aforesaid society after the alleged misappropriation had already occurred. It is argued that no specific and separate role of applicant regarding embezzlement of any amount has been assigned either in the FIR or in the statement of investors/customers and Section 409 IPC is not made out against the applicant as he is not a public servant. It is further argued that several investors/customers, namely Nathuni Kushwaha, Suraj Prajapati, Godhan, Surendra Kumar Mishra etc. have stated in their statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. that they have opened accounts in the aforesaid society and invested different amounts but on maturity period concerned authority of company closed the bank and ran away but applicant has not been assigned any direct or specific involvement in misappropriation of funds invested by the investors in the aforesaid society. It is next argued that co-accused Kuldeep Chauhan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9859 of 2025 and parity is sought in the matter. It is lastly submitted that applicant has criminal history of 21 cases which have been explained in para 41 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. 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 with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

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

¶20

BAIL No. 43974 of 2025

¶21

¶22

sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

(v) In case the applicant misuses 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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

December 18, 2025 RA

¶31

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Atul Kulshreshtha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kulshreshtha 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

Guddu Singh Parmar Alias Guddu Fauji vs State of U.P.

Mohit Moral vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P.

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

Santara vs State of U.P.

Radhika Devi vs State of U.P.