Suraj Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

First bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 BNSS with regard to FIR No. 203/2025 under Sections 340(2), 336(3), 338, 318(4), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur.

¶11

The F.I.R. is lodged against one Smt. Pooja Singh with the allegation that she is shown as Proprietor of a firm by the name of M/s. P.S. Traders as displayed on G.S.T. portal. It also indicates that the aforesaid firm is in the business of sale of optical, photographic, cinematographic, measuring, checking, precision, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus parts and accessories and is registered since 30.09.2024, but upon scrutiny no actual business was being conducted by the aforesaid firm while Input Tax Credit (ITC) was being claimed thereby defrauding the State exchequer.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated on allegations levelled against him and neither in the F.I.R. nor in any other investigation has any aspect been levelled that applicant is either Proprietor or Director of the aforesaid firm. It is submitted that applicant is therefore rightly not nominated in the F.I.R., but is under custody since 28.02.2026 without any previous criminal history.

¶13

BAIL No. 2478 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed bail with submission that applicant is one of the prime accused and his name emerged during the course of investigation as being instrumental in incorrect claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC). He has also adverted to the recovery memo to indicate that various articles were recovered including laptops and mobiles. However, it is admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that primary gist of allegations have been levelled against one Smt. Pooja Singh that she is indicated as Proprietor of firm by the name of M/s P.S.Traders with the allegation indicating that the said firm incorrectly claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual conduct of business. It appears that during the course of investigation, it has not been revealed that applicant was either Proprietor or Director in the aforesaid firm and his role in the allegation of incorrect claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) still remains unclear. The applicant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 28.02.2026.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting on merits and subject to evidence, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) 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

¶23

BAIL No. 2478 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶28

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of ball during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶29

Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

¶30

April 9, 2026 lakshman

¶31

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Similar cases

Arvind Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shankar @ Golu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Safeeq Ahmad @ Chote Munna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinay Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Sukanta Subrat Banerjee vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Binod Singh @ Vinod Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.