Ajeet Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.478 of 2025 under sections 316(2), 318(4), 308(5) BNS/406, 420, 386 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Sadar, district Unnao.

¶11

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶12

3. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the applicant's brother and the informant were engaged in the business of property dealing. It is further alleged that for purchase of a plot, an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/was paid in case to the present applicant, and subsequently, a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- was transferred through RTGS to the account of the coaccused. Thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused allegedly refused to execute the sale deed and misappropriated the said amount.

¶13

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Amit Kumar Nishad has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed by this court in Anticipatory Bail No.1570 of 2025 filed along with the supplementary affidavit today which is taken on record. The submission is that it is purely a business transaction and no suit for recovery of the alleged amount has been filed by the informant.

¶14

Learned counsel has drawn attention of the court towards bank account of

¶15

NABAIL No. 1823 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

the applicant and submits that on the same date, i.e. on 24.3.2025 when he received the amount of Rs.17,50,000/-, he transferred it to the account of the friend of the complainant. It is submitted that Sachin Singh in whose account the amount of Rs.17,50,000/- has been transferred by the accused applicant has moved an application for release before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in another case crime No.133 of 2025 which has been rejected vide order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure No.5 to the bail application). It is further submitted that the offences are triable by Magistrate. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶18

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. It is submitted that the case of the accused applicant is distinct from the case of the co-accused Amit Kumar Nishad who has been granted interim protection. In this case, amount has been transferred in the account of the applicant Ajeet Kumar Nishad on 24.3.2025. On the same date, he has transferred this amount to a third party Sachin Singh who has no concern with the present applicant of the present case.

¶19

He has drawn attention of the court towards the release application filed by Sachin Singh alias Amar Singh Rathore where he has stated that Ajeet Kumar Nishad, present applicant has no concern with the money transferred in the account of Sachin Singh. It is submitted that the offence is punishable upto 10 years. Complicity of the accused applicant is prima facie evident from the allegations in the prosecution case as well as the bank account filed by him and the release application filed by Sachin Singh.

¶20

6. I have considered the submission and perused the record. The trial court while rejecting the bail application has made following observations :

¶21

"पत्रावली के अवलोकन से प्रथम दृष्ट्या िविदत है िक प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् में नािमत है। प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त ने वादी मुकदमा से प्लाट लेने के िलए बयाने के 2 लाख रुपये ले िलये तथा प्राथर् अिभयुक्त के कहने पर उसके भाई के खाते में 17,50,000/- रुपये जिरए आर०टी०जी०एस० ट्रांसफर िकये। वादी मुकदमा रिजस्ट्री कराने के िलए प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त व उसके भाई से िमला तो इन लोगों ने असलहा लगाकर तथा जान से मारने का भय िदखाकर वादी के पास स्टाम्प खरीदने के िलए रखे हुए लगभग 1,30,000/- रुपये ले िलये। परन्तु प्लाट का िवक्रय पत्र िनष्पािदत नहीं कराया। प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त व उसके भाई द्वारा वादी से धोखाधड़ी करके उपरोक्त धनरािश प्राप्त की गयी िजसे वापस नहीं िकया गया और न ही िवक्रय

¶22

NABAIL No. 1823 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

पत्र िनष्पािदत िकया गया। सम्बिन्धत थाने की आख्यानुसार प्राथीर्/अिभयुक्त िगरफ्तारी से बचने के िलए अपनी उपिस्थित िनरंतर िछपाए हुए है। यिद अिभयुक्त को जमानत दी जाती है तो वह वादी व गवाहों पर सुलह-समझौते का दबाव बनाएगा तथा न्यायालय में उपिस्थत नहीं होगा। अतः मामले के समस्त तथ्य, पिरिस्थितयों श्रन्यायाथा अपराध की प्रकृित को दृिष्टगत रखते हुए प्राथीर्/अिभयुक्त को अिग्रम जमानत प्रदान िकये जाने का "संतोषजनक आधार नहीं है। अतः अिग्रम जमानत प्राथर्ना पत्र िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है।

¶25

आदेश

¶26

प्राथीर् अिभयुक्त अिमत कुमार िनषाद की ओर से प्रस्तुत अिग्रम जमानत प्राथर्ना-पत्र सं०2867/2025, मुकदमा अपराध धारा संख्या-478/2025, अन्तगर्त 316(2),318(4),308(5) बी०एन०एस०, थाना कोतवाली सदर, िजला उन्नाव, िनरस्त िकया जाता है। "

¶27

7.From the above discussion and perusal of the record, prima facie the complicity of the accused applicant seems to be evident. The accused applicant, prima facie, appears to have been entrusted with the property/money. It is not merely a breach of promise or agreement. It appears to be a case of entrustment and then transferring it to the account of a third party. The money-trail is yet to be investigated. Investigation is going on. Custodial interrogation appears to be necessary. The case of the applicant is distinct from the case of the co-accused Amit Kumar. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶28

8.The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

December 3, 2025

¶31

kkb/

¶32

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

Ajeet Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Dulari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Devendra Kumar Kausar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of Up Lko. and 2 Others

Tapish Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. and 2 Others

Udaibhan Vs State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raunak Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Varun Kumar Mishra @ Varun Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.