Ramashray Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42335 of 2025

¶3

Ramashray Prajapati

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Deepak Upadhyay, Raj Kumar Sharma, Rajjan Kumar, Rohit Nandan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 66

¶7

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Deepak Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadir, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.304 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3)BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however as per allegation on the assurance and instigation of applicant, his wife and son informant invested Rs. Thirty five lacs but his entire money has been misappropriated but entire allegation made against the applicant, his wife and son are totally false.

¶11

He next submitted, on the assurance of the son of the applicant i.e. co-accused Gaurav informant invested amount and Rs. 34,60,000/- have been transferred by coaccused Gaurav in different accounts which were provided by informant and this fact is evident from supplementary affidavit dated 1.11.2025 filed in support to the instant bail application and therefore, it can not be said, accused duped him.

¶12

He further submitted that even wife of applicant i.e. Kiran Prajapati has been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.4.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8257 of 2026 and as far as allegations are concerned case of applicant is at par with her.

¶13

He further submitted that however applicant is having criminal history of one another case of section 406 IPC but in that case he is on bail and he is in jail in the present matter since 27.8.2025 i.e. for eight months.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

BAIL No. 42335 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

However, as per allegation on the allurement of the applicant, his wife and his son informant invested Rs. Thirty five lacs and his entire money has been misappropriated by them but it reflects wife of the applicant i.e. Kiran Prajapati has already been released on bail and as far as allegations are concerned case of applicant is at par with her.

¶19

Further, applicant is however having criminal history of one another case of section 406 IPC but in that case he is on bail and he is in jail in the present matter for last eight months.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Ramashray Prajapati , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

April 23, 2026

Ankita

(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramashray Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashray Prajapati 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil vs State of U.P.

Vikas vs State of U.P.

Vikas Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Rahul vs State of U.P.

Mo Parvez vs State of U.P.