Nikant Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41784

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6707 of 2025

Applicant :- Nikant Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.149 of 2025, under Sections 409, 420, 465 I.P.C., P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

In the prosecution case it is alleged that loan was disbursed in the year 2017 on the basis of the land/plots mortgaged for the loan. Subsequently, plot mentioned at Sr. No.1, land area 760 sq. m, Village Sarosa-Bharosa, Ward : Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow was replaced vide application dated 27.03.2018 and Letter dated 29.03.2018 for the Replacement of Collateral, with a different plot of 2800 Sq.M. situated at village: Bajehra, Tehsil : Hassanganj, District : Unnao and on the approval of Bank Officers, Property No.1 of Village Sarosa Bharosa was released by bank. It has been further alleged that the loan account was declared NPA on 30.09.2018, thereafter bank, when re-assessed valuation of the mortgaged plots, then it came to the knowledge of the bank that the value of plots are much lesser than their value and inflated valuation was proposed by borrowers, action has been taken against Panel Valuers, they have been delisted.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused

¶10

Sukant Jain and another has filed a writ petition numbered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5323 of 2025 for quashing of F.I.R. wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 23.06.2025 has given a categorical finding that the F.I.R. is highly belated and does not relate to an offence which took place in the year 2017 under Sections 409, 420, 465 IPC. He submits that the co-accused persons are enjoying the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶11

It is also submitted that proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding the same cause are pending. The applicant has been made scapegoat however the alleged offence in the F.I.R. cannot be committed without active connivance of the Bank Manager and other managerial staff of the bank however, none of them have been implicated in the F.I.R. He submits that informant is Bank Manager who has tried to save his counter parts of the bank. Applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 21 of the bail application. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 10.06.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer however, could not dispute the fact that as of now there is no one from the bank who has been made accused in this case. He submits that investigation is going on and the culprits, if any, will be roped if any material is found regarding their complicity including the bank officers.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2025, offence is alleged to have been taken place in the year 2017, finding given by the Division Bench of this

¶15

Court in its order dated 23.06.2025 regarding the offence under Sections 409, 420, 465 IPC so also the fact that proceedings relating to this case are pending before the NCLT for the sale of property of the company, offences are triable by magistrate so also the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & anr. ; Criminal Appeal No.3114 of 2024 , undertaking given by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant will cooperate in the investigation and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Nikant Jain be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶23

(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 Section 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶24

Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

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

Nikant Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikant Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Roshan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept.. Lko

Vimal @ Chuha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Awadhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Nikant Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nausad @ Nausar vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Home

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