Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6933 of 2025

Durga Prasad

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranshu Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

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

¶10

2. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 08.12.2019 against nine persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant had invested money in Shine City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Company, Lucknow for purchasing more than one plot of land. The Company had issued some cheques in the name of the informant but when the cheques were presented to the bank, the same were returned by the bank with a note "Fund Insufficient". The informant requested the Company for refund of the money through another mode but the Company avoided repayment of the money.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Amitabh Kumar Srivastava alias Amitabh Srivastava and Asif Naseem have been granted bail vide orders dated 6.5.2025 and 23.4.2025 passed in Bail No.1873 of 2025 and 3022 of 2025 respectively. It is submitted that these two co-accused persons were having criminal history of 538 cases and 220 cases respectively whereas the applicant has a criminal history of 14 cases which have been explained in the bail application. He seeks parity. The offences are triable by Magistrate. Till date, charges have not been framed. The trial is going on at a very slow pace. The applicant is in jail since 4.1.2024.

¶12

BAIL No. 6933 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

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.

¶15

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that charges have not been framed and trial is yet to commence, the coaccused, above referred, have been enlarged on bail, the applicant has explained criminal history, the offence is triable by Magistrate, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

6. Let the applicant Durga Prasad, involved in Case Crime No.114 of 2020 under sections 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow, 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:-

¶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

BAIL No. 6933 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

(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)

¶25

(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).

¶26

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial.

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

October 8, 2025

¶30

kkb/

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Durga Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Santosh Bharti Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raj Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Lavkush Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy Deptt. Home Lko.

Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.