Disposed

Uttam Kumar Singh Rajpoot Alias Uttam Singh Rajput v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2025NABAIL/783/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought under Section 318(4) BNS in an FIR alleging non-payment of returns on investments in LUCC. Court found no material showing applicant held any position in the society or received misappropriated amounts and granted interim anticipatory bail on conditions including cooperation with investigation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Uttam Kumar Singh Rajpoot Alias Uttam Singh Rajput vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 783 of 2025 Applicant :- Uttam Kumar Singh Rajpoot Alias Uttam Singh Rajput

¶2

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶3

Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Shekhar Shukla,Amarendra Pratap Singh,Lalta Prasad Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 58/2025, under Section: 318(4) BNS, Police Station-Kotwali Sadar, DistrictKheeri.

¶6

Heard Shri L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant assisted by Shri Shashank Shekhar Shukla and Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

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

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. against the persons named in the FIR, including the applicant, alleging that the LUCC has not paid returns on the investments made by the complainant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not hold any position in LUCC and is, in fact, himself an investor in the said company. The fixed deposit certificates issued by LUCC are on record, and the list of directors of the company does not contain the applicant’s name. The applicant is 53 years old and has been falsely implicated in the present case as well as in several other cases lodged by the investors of LUCC. Except from the present case and other similar cases, the applicant has no prior criminal history. He has explained the

¶10

said cases in the supplementary affidavit.

¶11

It is also submitted that the allegations made in the present FIR are more or less similar to those made in other cases. In a case bearing Crime No. 295 of 2024, Police Station Badosari, District Barabanki, registered on similar allegations, the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 584 of 2025. The said order was passed after the State Government filed a counter affidavit and the entire material on record was considered.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the applicant has not approached the lower Court before approaching this Court by filing anticipatory bail application. In this context, he has placed reliance on the judgment in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1949.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

A perusal of the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 333 of 2025 by a coordinate Bench of this Court shows that all preliminary objections raised by the State were duly considered and anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant in Crime No. 292 of 2024 (under Sections 111/318/61(2)/351(2)/352 of BNS). The primary allegation in such cases is that investors deposited funds in the cooperative society (LUCC), which were not returned and were allegedly usurped.

¶15

Prima facie, there is no material on record to indicate that the

¶16

applicant holds any official position in the society, nor is there any evidence to show that any misappropriated amount was credited to his personal account. Learned AGA has also failed to demonstrate that the applicant has received any such amount from the complainant or any other investor in the present or connected crime numbers.

¶17

The matter requires consideration.

¶18

Let notice be issued to private respondent.

¶19

Steps be taken within a week.

¶20

Learned Addl. Government Advocate is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶21

List on 08.08.2025.

¶22

Considering the submissions advanced, the material on record, and the undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate in the investigation, and in view of the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal & Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, this Court finds it appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶23

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶24

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned

¶25

call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶26

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶27

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 R.C.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Uttam Kumar Singh Rajpoot Alias Uttam Singh Rajput v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Uttam Kumar Singh Rajpoot Alias Uttam Singh Rajput v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tarun Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sukhdev Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jatan @ Jatin Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Brijpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohd. Asif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another