Disposed¶19

Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026BAIL/664/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Karunesh Singh Pawar J.; applicant Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P.; allegation of obtaining Rs. 60,000/- on pretext of plot or doubling investment within 36 months with five other named accused; co-accused Ratan Chandra Dwivedi (main accused/CMD) already granted bail by court below; offences stated triable by Magistrate; criminal history 31 cases (counsel) vs 32 cases (State/Court) held unexplained/casual; two weeks granted for supplementary affidavit; listed 26.02.2026 as fresh; no merits decision.

What did the court decide?

Bail application not decided on merits; two weeks' time granted to the applicant to file a supplementary affidavit explaining his criminal history in detail, and the matter listed on 26.02.2026 as fresh. ¶19

Ashutosh Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in respect of the allegation that he, along with five other named accused persons, obtained Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of providing a plot or doubling the invested amount within 36 months, with neither the plot provided nor the amount returned. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that the pleadings in paragraph no. 20 of the bail application purporting to explain the applicant's long and chequered criminal history of 32 cases had not been explained at all and appeared to have been made in a casual manner.

¶15

Key takeaways

At the request of counsel for the applicant, two weeks' time was granted to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the applicant's criminal history in detail.ratio¶19
The bail application was directed to be listed on 26.02.2026 as fresh; bail was not decided on merits at this stage.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.) — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 664 of 2026, Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Prosecution allegation: the applicant, along with five other named accused persons, on the pretext of providing a plot or doubling the invested amount within 36 months, obtained Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant; neither the plot was provided nor the amount returned. Counsel for the applicant urged innocence, reliance on bail granted to co-accused Ratan Chandra Dwivedi (stated main accused and CMD of the company) by the court below, and that the offences are triable by the Magistrate; he also referred to 31 criminal cases as antecedents. The State contended the applicant failed to properly explain a criminal history of 32 cases. The Court observed that the pleadings in paragraph no. 20 of the bail application regarding the criminal history of 32 cases had not been explained at all and appeared casual, granted two weeks to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history in detail, and listed the matter on 26.02.2026 as fresh. Bail not considered on merits at this interlocutory stage.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 664 of 2026

Ashutosh Tripathi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ujjwal Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 15

¶10

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The allegation in the prosecution case is that the applicant, along with five other named accused persons, on the pretext of providing a plot or doubling the invested amount within a period of 36 months, obtained a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant. It is alleged that neither the promised plot was provided nor the said amount was returned.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. It is further submitted that co-accused Ratan Chandra Dwivedi, who is stated to be the main accused as well as the CMD of the company, has already been granted bail by the learned court below, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the bail application. It is also contended that the offences are triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has explained his criminal antecedents comprising 31 cases.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant has failed to properly explain his criminal history of 32 cases, particularly in paragraph no. 23 of the bail application.

¶15

A perusal of paragraph no. 20 of the bail application depicts that the pleadings with regard to the long and chequered criminal history of 32 cases have not been explained at all and appear to have been made in a casual

BAIL No. 664 of 2026

manner.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history of the applicant in detail. Accordingly, two weeks’ time is granted for the said purpose.

¶20

List on 26.02.2026 as fresh.

¶21

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶22

February 11, 2026 R.C.

¶23

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

Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Raju vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Shiv Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mo. Shameem vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neeraj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another