Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh @ D.K Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5620 of 2025

¶3

Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh @ D.K

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hari Krishna Srivastava, Surendra Kumar Tripathi, Sweta Swarankar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶11

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the applicant alongwith the coaccused persons induced/lured the complainant to deposit money in their company namely L.U.C.C, on the pretext of providing 15 % interest with a further promise that upon maturity i.e after 84 months, he will be paid double the amount. The complainant, in installments, has deposited 1 crore 56 lakh Rupees. However, after maturity, when he was asked for the amount, he was hurled abuses and threatened to be killed by the applicant and the co-accused persons.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has criminal history of 4 cases which has been explained in paragraph-20 of the bail application and paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that the offences are triable by the Magistrate and the chargesheet in the case has already been filed. He further submits that the applicant has not received a single penny in his account. He is not the Director, rather, he was the Chairman of the Company.

¶13

He further submits that the co-accused persons namely Uttam Kumar Singh Rajpoot @ Uttam Singh Rajput, who was the senior officer of the said company, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 604 of 2025 vide order dated

¶14

BAIL No. 5620 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

19.09.2025. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co-accused.

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A.has opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not dispute that it is a case of parity.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the fact that in paragraph-13 of the bail application, specific averment has been made that the applicant has not received any amount in his account except for the salary of Rs. 25,000/per month from March, 2021 and no denial to this fact has been made by the learned A.G.A, while filing the counter affidavit, coupled with the fact that coaccused Uttam Kumar Singh Rajpoot @ Uttam Singh Rajpoot, who was assigned the similar role, has been granted anticipatory bail and the case of the applicant appears to be similarly situated, this is a regular bail application, the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.11.2024, he seeks parity with the bail orders of co-accused Uttam Singh Rajpoot and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Let the applicant Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh @ D.K , involved in Case Crime No. 103 of 2025, under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/21 the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, P.S. Fatehpur, District Barabanki, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) 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.

¶24

BAIL No. 5620 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

(iv) 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.

¶27

(v) 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. (now 269 BNS)

¶28

(vi) 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. (now 84 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

¶29

The application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶30

November 14, 2025 DiVYa

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

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

Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh @ D.K v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh @ D.K v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Deepak Pal Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Kamal Kutil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Liyakat Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Dilgajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jamal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Shahjad @ Saiyaad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.