Mukesh Kumar Jain vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42348

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9599 of 2025

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 686 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) BNS and Section 3/21 Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against three accused persons (non applicant) and according to FIR, nominated accused persons, who were agents of the company duped the informant by playing fraud.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation, he has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that he was also one of the agent of the company.

¶11

He further submitted that if through an agent of the company, any person deposited money in the company and subsequently

¶12

company fails to return the money then agent of the company cannot be held responsible for that.

¶13

He further submitted that applicant was not having any previous criminal history but simultaneously along with present matter, he has been made accused in as many as eleven other cases with the similar allegations. He further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the affidavit and the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

¶14

He further submitted that however, applicant has also been challenged for the offence under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but there is no evidence in this regard against the applicant on record.

¶15

He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case in detail co-accused Mahesh Prasad Rajak has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 1801 of 2025 and on fact, case of the applicant is at par with him.

¶16

He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.12.2024.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

It reflects that during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with others on the ground that he was also one of the agent of the company, therefore, it reflects

¶20

that only due to reason that he was agent in LUCC company, he has been made accused in the present matter and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

¶21

Further, apart from the present case, it reflects that applicant is having criminal history of eleven other cases but he was not having any previous criminal history and from perusal of his criminal history, it reflects that along with the present matter, he has been made accused in all the other cases with similar allegations.

¶22

Further, however, in the present matter, applicant has also been challaned for the offence under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record with regard to offence under Section 111 BNS.

¶23

Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 0812.2024.

¶24

Further, similarly placed co-accused Mahesh Prasad Rajak has already been released on bail by this Court and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.12.2024.

¶25

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

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

¶27

Let the applicant- Mukesh Kumar Jain be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties

¶28

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 SKM

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Jain 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

Raju vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Barsainya vs State of U.P.

Harveer vs State of U.P.

Pankaj vs State of U.P.

Sagar Urf Sahil Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Shivam vs State of U.P.