Kamlesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139414

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5144 of 2025

Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 1094 of 2013, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Shahjahanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. The applicant was an agent in a company known as Ramel Industries Ltd. and was working on commission basis. The applicant was neither a director nor a senior functionary, who is responsible for a day to day affairs of the company. The applicant is not responsible for the viability of the business model or failure of the company to make good on its promises of higher returns. No amount was credited in the account of the applicant. The amount was deposited in the account of the alleged company. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, identically placed coaccused, Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Navi Hasan and Amit Sharma have been granted anticipatory bail, till submission of Police report, by this Court vide orders dated 25.03.2021, 25.04.2025 and 11.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 7534 of 2021, 2279 of 2025 and 5256 of 2025 respectively. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that the investigation is pending and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, in particular the fact, that the applicant was not named in the first information report; the name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation; the applicant was an agent in the alleged company, the fact that the amount was deposited in the account of the alleged company, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence, identically placed co-accused, Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Navi Hasan and Amit Sharma have been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report by this Court, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Kamlesh Kumar be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the Police Commissioner concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Lbm/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamlesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manas Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Imran Khan vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P.(Lucknow)

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Shyama vs State of U.P.

Anwar Hussain vs State of U.P. and Another