Praveen Kumar Katariya Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36546 of 2025

Praveen Kumar Katariya

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Srijan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2025 under Section 318 (4), 316 (2) BNS, Police Station-Kairana, District-Shamli, during the pendency of the trial before before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge Shamli at Kairana vide order dated 08.07.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.05.2025.

¶9

Shri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the bail plea submits that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. It is contended that the First Information Report giving rise to the case crime in question was lodged nominating the applicant and two other persons alleging that about 2 years back the co-accused Sarwar stated to be an acquaintance of the first informant brought the applicant and co-accused Sameer to the house of the first informant and introduced the applicant as his business partner and Director of a trading firm in the name and style of Netro Express. The firm assures many fold returns of the investment after two years. Sarwar stated that if an amount of Rs. 5,13,000/- is invested, the Firm would give back 3000 NFC Coins on the official App which would be held for 24 months and after expiry of the said period the firm would continue giving 24 NFC Coins per week on the App.The

¶10

BAIL No. 36546 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

value of the coins could be checked on 'liverate' and one could withdraw the equivalent cash amount either through the Liverate or through the said firm's App. Certain other attractive offers were made under the scheme floated by the firm. The applicant is alleged to have invested a sum of Rs. 2,63,000/- in cash. His online registration was done and 3000 coins were transferred. The applicant further invested a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and 70,000/- into the account of co-accused Sarwar on 02.11.2022 and Sarwar is stated to have issued a Cheque bearing No. 756942 for Rs. 5,13,000/- in favour of the informant. The Informant admits that he was paid Rs. 40,000/-, 1,00,000/-, 50,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- (i.e. total of Rs. 2,70,000) by co accused Sarwar as a return on investment. It is also admitted that Sarwar asked the informant to return the cheque of Rs. 5,13,000/- and he would pay the balance amount directly into the Bank account of the informant and later denied to make the payment.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that all the transactions have been conducted between the informant and the coaccused Sarwar and Sameer and there is no evidence on record to remotely connect the applicant with the offence alleged. In any case learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the allegation the dispute between the parties is essentially commercial in nature and has been given a colour of criminality. As per the allegations in the First Information Report no offence under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2) BNS can be said to be made out against the applicant. No specific role of inducement and/or entrustment has been alleged against the applicant. The applicant is neither the Director or the owner of the Firm and is merely the promoter of the NFC Coins mode of transaction known to Yield high returns for investors. It is also argued that such transactions are legal in India but attract high taxation. It is also argued that value of NFC coins are subject to market fluctuations and the applicant does not have any control over the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed on 06.05.2025 and investigation against the applicant stands concluded. Further custodial interrogation is not required. It has also been argued that though charge sheet was filed as far back as on 05.05.2025 the charges have yet not been framed against the applicant and the trial is yet to

¶14

BAIL No. 36546 of 2025

¶15

3

¶16

commence. Co-accused Sameer has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.07.2025. The applicant has criminal antecedents of 3 other cases which have been duly explained in para 54 of the bail application. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the transactions and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence bail prayed for.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶18

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant-Praveen Kumar Katariya, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶21

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶22

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶23

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶24

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶25

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶26

April 10, 2026 Deepak/

¶27

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kumar Katariya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Katariya 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

Similar cases

Dharmender Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dillidhar @ Beeru vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Singh Rathore vs State of U.P.

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P.