Allowed

Sandeep Maitee v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2026BAIL/7736/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under multiple IPC cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy sections arising from an investment dispute involving Vishwas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. The court noted the proprietor co-accused had been granted bail and the applicant's prolonged custody, and allowed bail without entering into merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, non-cooperation, or further criminal activity.

Sandeep Maitee vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7736 of 2024

Sandeep Maitee

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 23

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sandeep Maitee for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.0846 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, during trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution. So far as the company, namely, Vishwas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd is concerned, the applicant was an employee in the said company. In fact the applicant is an unemployed youth and therefore he joined the company on salary basis. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 8.6.2020. It is further submitted that in fact there was no person to do pairvi in this case because the applicant belongs to West Bengal (Kolkata) and for want of local pairokar, he could not move bail application earlier. The applicant has been planted in total 31 cases at the same instance, all of which relates to the similar dispute regarding investments of money, details of which have been duly explained in paragraph 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the co accused who is proprietor of the aforesaid firm namely Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.2.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.1337 of 2024. Chargesheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Hence, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence and having regard to his long criminal history, he is

¶14

BAIL No. 7736 of 2024

¶15

¶16

not entitled to be released on bail, though could not deny the fact that the co accused, as aforesaid has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶17

Having heard the facts and circumstances of the cases particularly the fact that the co accused who is proprietor of the aforesaid firm namely Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.2.2024 and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 8.6.2020 and the chargesheet has been submitted; without entering into the merits of the case, I find it being a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶18

In result, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶19

Let the accused/applicant- Sandeep Maitee , involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶26

February 25, 2026 Shukla

¶27

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Maitee v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Maitee v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

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

Indra Prakash Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow

Kaushalender Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Prabhu Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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