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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27500

Court No. - 17

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 965 of 2025

Applicant :- Meera Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Mitra Anand,Durgesh Kumar Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

This case is nominated to this Court by Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 27.2.2025.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.1613 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case and she is in jail since 20.10.2021. He further submitted that applicant is one of the Director in M/S Kingston Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and her company was facilitating the M/S Shine City but she was not aware about the details and ownership of the properties those were sold out by the M/S Shine City. He also submitted that on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged and thereafter, she was implicated in about 90 cases those were lodged by the investors against M/S Shine City. It is also submitted that charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant, however, more than three years have already been passed but till today, charge has not been framed and all the offences are triable by Magistrate and no evidence is found in the case diary for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C. It is further submitted that trial of offences under Sections 409 & 420 I.P.C. cannot run together and photo copy of the statement of witnesses are being relied and submitted by the Investigating Officer in all the cases. In these circumstances, the applicant is

¶10

entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that sufficient evidences were found against the applicant, thereafter, charge sheet was filed, but they do not dispute this fact that till today, charge has not been framed against the applicant.

¶12

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., going through the material available on record, contents of F.I.R. & master counter affidavit filed in the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10571 of 2024 as well as facts and circumstances of the case, nowhere, it is found that money was deposited in the account of the applicant and till today, charge has also not been framed against the applicant, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Let applicant - Meera Srivastava - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on her furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶15

(ii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the

¶18

Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 GauraV/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL 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?

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

Smt. Raman Singh vs Dr. Mahandra Deo, Director of Education (Secondary), Prayagraj and Others

Subhash Chandra through power of attorney holder Arti Devi vs Aman Tyagi Posted as Executive Engineer/ Saksham Adhikar, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

Nitin Bhatia vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Manish Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.