Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Brijesh Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the complainant appearing for the complainant.

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2020 u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Gomti Nagar, DistrictLucknow.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is in jail since 17.10.2020, has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has been implicated in 226 cases of identical allegations, out of which, he has been enlarged on bail in 140 cases. He next submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial and as the charge has not been framed till date, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the submission of the applicant's counsel.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the applicant is in jail since 17.10.2020, but the charge has not been

¶16

BAIL No. 4700 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

framed till date. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava , who is involved in aforementioned case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to following conditions:

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 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.

¶25

(v) In case, the applicant misuses 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. may be issued and if 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 I.P.C./209 B.N.S.

¶26

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the

¶27

BAIL No. 4700 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

The presence of Mr. Veer Bahadur Dubey, Sub Inspector, Police Station- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow is hereby dispensed with.

¶32

The trial Court shall conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶33

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶34

September 15, 2025

¶35

Arpan

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Keshav Prasad Agnihotri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha Lko and 6 Others

Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. U.P. and 7 Others

Dinesh Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Akbal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Anubhag -1, U.P. Lko. and Another