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

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1561 of 2019 under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 of IPC registered at P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶13

While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶14

It is further stated that the applicant has been roped in 226 cases of similar nature and in 196 cases, the I.O. has filed the report and out of 226 cases, the applicant has been released in about 170 cases.

¶15

It is further stated that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and in this view of the matter the applicant is not in a position to tamper the evidence of the prosecution and also he is not in a position to influence the witness of the prosecution.

¶16

It is stated that the applicant is in jail since 17.10.2020 and taking note of period of incarceration i.e. more than 5 years, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

In support of its submission, learned counsel for the applicant has

¶18

BAIL No. 4855 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020) , as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused.

¶21

Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:-

¶22

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶23

In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-

¶24

"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

¶25

BAIL No. 4855 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

It is also submitted that in case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.

¶29

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents, the role attributed to the applicant and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶30

Let the applicant- Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶31

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶32

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶33

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶34

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶35

(v) 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.

¶36

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶37

BAIL No. 4855 of 2025

¶38

4

¶39

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶40

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶41

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶42

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶43

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶44

November 7, 2025 Anurag

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Firdaus Jahan Vs Mohammad Mobin

Ankita Verma vs State of U.P. thru Principal Sec. Civil Secretariate and another

Sharda University Thru. Registrar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Aneeta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

P (Juvenile) Thru. the Next Friend/ Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Anurag Shukla vs Commercial Court Lko. and 4 Others