Sachin Kumar vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92128

Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5541 of 2025

Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar,Reeta Rani,Udai Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 595 of 2024, under Section 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 338 of BNS and Section 66 C and 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations against the applicant is that applicant and co-accused had taken different amount from the informant and other aggrieved persons for preparation of Visa and Air ticket on the pretext of sending them to Israel for getting job. The informant and others were allured by a firm Shivi International Pvt. Ltd. which was operating at Ballia near Kassim Bazar Town Hall. Subsequently forged Air tickets and Visa were provided to the informant and affected persons lost their money. He next submitted that accused applicant has been implicated in two other cases of similar nature at the instance of different informants registered as Case Crime No.596 of 2024 and Case Crime No.574 of 2024 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS 2023 and Section 66 (C) and 66 (D) of IT Act, at P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia. The accused applicant has been enlarged on bail by order of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Case Crime No.574 of 2024, in which similar allegations are made against the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Firm Shivi International Pvt. Ltd. was established in Ballia through Social Media, which prepared passport and AIR tickets for job in Foreign Country. The applicant met the proprietor of the Company

¶10

who gave him assurance for providing a job in Foreign country and demanded Rs.2 lakh for preparation of Visa. The applicant himself paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 28.10.2024 for preparation of documents for Foreign visit. However, the Company demanded Rs.1 lakh more which he did not pay, and when he demanded his money back only Rs.5,000/- was paid to him. Thus, he himself is victim of the misdeeds of the person, who were running the said Company.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that there is no material on record to indicate that any amount of the informant of any aggrieved person has been paid to the applicant or transferred in his account. He has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no specific allegation against the accused applicant. He has explained criminal history of two cases lodged in quick succession and with similar allegations.The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2024.

¶12

On the other hand learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is a case of online fraud.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and there is no specific allegation against the accused applicant. He has explained criminal history of two cases lodged in quick succession and with similar allegations and the fact that applicant is in jail since 11.11.2024, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Sachin Kumar , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions.

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶17

(iii) 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., 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 IPC.

¶18

(iv) 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. 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Ashish/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ashok Kumar Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shriram vs Urmila Devi

Priyanshu Mishra @ Golu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar Shukla @ Sheel Kumar Shukla and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Tabassum vs State of U.P.