Allowed

Meera Srivastava v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2025BAIL/7944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by a woman accused in an investment-fraud FIR involving Shine City Infra Project Ltd., with involvement in 90 similar cases and bail already granted in 75. Trial had not progressed; no witness examined. Court found circumstances sufficient and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Meera Srivastava released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to three conditions.

Meera Srivastava Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46538

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7944 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Meera Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Mitra Anand,Utkarsh Anand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Singh Vishen

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

A request for adjournment of the case has been made on behalf of Shri Brjiesh Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶7

On 09.06.2025 also, when the case was listed, adjournment had been sought on behalf of Shri Brjiesh Singh Vishen on the ground of his illness. While adjourning the case, this Court had specifically mentioned that in case the learned counsel for the complainant fails to assist the Court even on the next date, the matter shall be decided finally.

¶8

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to decide the bail application after hearing the submissions of the Shri Desh Mitra Anand, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perusing the records.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.1601 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. alleging that the informant had made investments in Shine City Infra Project Ltd. but no benefit was given to him on

¶11

the investments made in the aforesaid company.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a woman who is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

The applicant's involvement in 90 other criminal cases has been disclosed in para 28 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, all of which are similar in nature and the applicant has already been granted bail in 75 cases of similar nature.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2021 and merely charges have been framed in about 10 cases in the last week. Not a single prosecution witness has been examined and in numerous cases, even charges have not been framed till date.

¶15

Learned A.G.A.-I has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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 crime.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Meera Srivastava 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:-

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 S. Shivhare

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Meera Srivastava v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Srivastava v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjeet Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Hakeek Khan @ Hakeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Azad Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Curruption Branch Lko.

Niranjan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Meera Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another