Pramod Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2025BAIL/7577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted in criminal breach of trust case (Sections 409, 504, 506 IPC) where FIR filed 3.5 years after sale deed; court held dispute is civil in nature (non-delivery of possession) and not criminal; applicant had prior bail in similar cases.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions: (i) applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence; (ii) applicant shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses; (iii) applicant shall appear on each date fixed by trial court. ¶¶15

Pramod Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47763

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7577 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Satyendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2025 under Sections 409, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 16.04.2025 against the applicant and his brother Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya stating that the complainant had purchased a plot of land in the name of his wife from H.K. Infravision Pvt. Ltd., of which the accused persons are the Directors, through a sale deed dated 14.12.2021 but the possession of the plot was not handed over to him. The complainant requested that possession of the plot be delivered to him.

¶9

A copy of the sale deed has been annexed with a supplementary affidavit wherein it is recorded that possession of the land sold through a sale deed was handed over prior to execution of the sale deed.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶11

The applicant's involvement in 21 other criminal cases has been disclosed in para-16 of the bail application and his involvement in 17 other criminal cases has been disclosed in para-3 of the supplementary affidavit, all of which are of similar nature. The applicant has been granted bail in two cases.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that investigation in the present case is still pending.

¶13

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the applicant has duped the complainant's wife besides several other persons by selling away land in excess of the land that was with the Company.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the sale deed in question was executed on 14.12.2021 and it is mentioned in the sale deed that possession of the land was handed over to the purchaser, the FIR has been lodged about three and a half years thereafter alleging that possession has not been delivered to the purchaser and requesting the police to hand over the plot, which is a relief of civil nature and which cannot be claimed in lodging of the FIR; it appears that for redressal of grievance of civil nature, the applicant has lodged the FIR; that the applicant has already been granted bail in two other cases of similar nature, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar Upadhyay be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶18

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 14.8.2025 -Amit K-

¶20

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

Pramod Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. 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

Asif Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Asif Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Asif Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajeshwar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Nekiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deppt. Home Lko.