Dwarika Prasad Jha vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48348

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6584 of 2025

Applicant :- Dwarika Prasad Jha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijit Saxena,Vineeta Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on records.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Dwarika Prasad Jha , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 647 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 336(3), 61(2), 340(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 26.07.2024 by Dhaniram Ahirwar against 05 named persons. The applicant is not named therein.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter only because of the reason that he was working as an Advisor / Agent of a company named as LUCC Company (The Loni Urban Multi State Credit and Thrift Co-operative Society) which was a multi state cooperative society registered before the Central Registrar of Co-operative Society, New Delhi. It is submitted that identically placed co-accused Mahesh Prasad Rajak and Satish Chandra Jain, have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2025 and 27.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2707 of 2025 and 3204 of 2025, the copy of the said orders have been produced before the Court which are taken on record. Further while placing paragraph 28 of the affidavit it is submitted that in cases of identical nature the applicant was involved in 11 other cases and one case under the Gangsters Act which has been quashed in a writ petition filed by the applicant- Dwarika Prasad Jha in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4262 of 2025 (Dwarika Prasad Jha Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) vide order dated 12.03.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court and the wrti petition has been allowed, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is submitted that previously the applicant was having a criminal history of one case in which he has

¶11

been acquitted by the concerned trial court, paragraph 29 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 16.08.2024.

¶12

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the first information report. The applicant was working as an agent in LUCC Company. Identically placed co-accused Mahesh Prasad Rajak and Satish Chandra Jain have been granted bail. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Dwarika Prasad Jha , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 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 209 B.N.S., 2023.

¶20

(v) 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 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

The bail application is allowed .

¶24

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 AS Rathore

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dwarika Prasad Jha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Prasad Jha 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

Similar cases

Shyamvir Solanki vs State of U.P.

Usha Devi vs State of U.P.

Aanchal Puri Alias Kangana Shidhu and Another vs State of Up and Another

Ajay vs State of U.P.

Samir vs State of U.P.

Satish and Another vs State of U.P.