Allowed¶17

Dwarika Prasad Jha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2025BAIL/7370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; agent of LUCC deposit-scheme company made accused during investigation; parity with co-accused Satish Chandra Jain (Bail Application No. 1758 of 2025, order dated 31.01.2025); Sections 111, 61(2), 318, 352, 351(3) B.N.S.; Sections 3/21 Banning of the Unregulated Deposit Scheme Prohibition Act; Case Crime No. 612 of 2024; P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur; custody since 16.08.2024 (over six months); one prior case ended in acquittal; eleven similar cases; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7370 of 2025; Sameer Jain, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; 2025:AHC:29932.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Dwarika Prasad Jha on bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the stated conditions.

Dwarika Prasad Jha Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, made accused during investigation as an agent of the LUCC company, is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024 under Sections 111, 61(2), 318, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/21 of the Banning of the Unregulated Deposit Scheme Prohibition Act.

¶7

Court's answer

The applicant, made accused during investigation merely as an agent of the company, is entitled to be released on bail, considering parity with similarly placed co-accused Satish Chandra Jain already released on bail, his explained criminal history, and his incarceration since 16.08.2024 for more than six months.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (appearance before the trial court, no inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence, no criminal or anti-social activity), with liberty to the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail on breach.

¶16

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 66; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:29932), Single Bench - Sameer Jain, J. - Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7370 of 2025, decided 3.3.2025. Bail granted to applicant Dwarika Prasad Jha, made accused during investigation as an agent of the LUCC company in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, under Sections 111, 61(2), 318, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/21 of the Banning of the Unregulated Deposit Scheme Prohibition Act. Grounds: parity with co-accused Satish Chandra Jain, released on bail vide order dated 31.01.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1758 of 2025; previous criminal history of one case ending in acquittal explained; eleven other cases with similar allegations; custody since 16.08.2024 exceeding six months; learned AGA could not dispute the facts. Bail allowed without expressing any opinion on merits, on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with conditions as to appearance, non-tampering and abstention from criminal/anti-social activity; prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation on breach; observations confined to disposal of the bail application.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29932

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7370 of 2025

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, under Sections 111, 61(2), 318, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/21 of Banning of the Unregulated Deposit Scheme Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter merely on the ground that he is one of the agent of LUCC company, who duped the common public.

¶9

He further submits, being agent of the company, applicant cannot be held liable if subsequently company failed to repay the amount to its investors.

¶10

He further submits, during investigation along with applicant co-accused Satish Chandra Jain was also made accused and he was also agent of the company and he has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1758 of 2025 and on facts case of applicant is at par with him.

¶11

He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant was having previous criminal history of one case but in that case he has been acquitted. It is further submitted, along with present matter applicant has also made accused in eleven other cases but in all the cases he has been made accused with similar allegations.

¶12

He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 16.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant being agent of the company has been made accused in the present matter during investigation and similarly placed co-accused Satish Chandra Jain has been released on bail and his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 16.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant - Dwarika Prasad Jha be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 AK Pandey

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases