Radha Krishna Katiyar vs Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. Head of the Branch, Lucknow

This application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) BNSS, 2023 has been filed in the instant criminal appeal arising out of Criminal Case No.8000002/2023, arising out of Case Crime No.RC05(S)/2012/CBI/SCB/LKO, under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, IPC & Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station -CBI, SCB, Lucknow, District - Lucknow in which the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo 02 Years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment he has to undergo 02 months additional Simple Imprisonment.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant while pressing the bail application submitted that the Trial Court has failed to take note of the

¶18

CRLA No. 348 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

statement(s)/evidence of the prosecution properly.

¶21

It is also stated that the trial court has not considered the evidence available on record in its true spirit and therefore, the order of conviction is unsustainable in the eye of law and fact both.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has further submitted that the applicant/appellant was on bail during trial and after conviction, taking note of maximum period of sentence awarded i.e. 3 years, the Trial Court enlarged the appellant on interim bail and he never misused the said liberty. It is also submitted that the appellant/applicant is on interim bail granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 24.12.2025.

¶23

It is further stated that the appellant is 77 years of age and is suffering from various ailments being an old aged person and therefore, he was/is under treatment.

¶24

It is further stated that while passing the judgment of conviction, under appeal, dated 24.12.2025, the Trial Court concerned failed to consider major contradictions in the statement(s) of witnesses of prosecution.

¶25

It is also stated that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the appellant with regard to the allegations related to cheating, which ought to have been proved for the purposes of convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶26

Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Shri Anurag Kumar Singh has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order after considering the evidence placed before it and therefore there is no illegality in the same. However, he does not dispute the fact that appellant was on bail during the course of trial and he never misused the liberty of bail.

¶27

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned counsel for the side opposite and the judgment of the trial court as also the fact that appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty and the appellant is on interim bail granted by the trial court, as also the fact that the chances of

¶28

CRLA No. 348 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

final hearing in this appeal in near future are bleak and also the fact that the appellant is about 77 years old and is suffering from old age diseases and also the maximum period of sentence awarded i.e. 02 years, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to suspend the sentence of the applicant/appellant and to grant bail to the applicant/appellant till the outcome of the instant appeal.

¶31

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. The sentence imposed by the trial court shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal.

¶32

Let the appellant - Radha Krishna Katiyar involved in aforesaid criminal Case be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:

¶33

(i) The amount of fine imposed by the trial court shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within one month from the date of release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited.

¶34

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶35

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

¶36

As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶37

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

¶38

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶39

February 12, 2026

¶40

ML/-

¶41

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Radha Krishna Katiyar v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. Head of the Branch, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Krishna Katiyar v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. Head of the Branch, Lucknow

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

C/M Baba Prem Das Junior High Schoool Thru.Manager,Harish Chandra Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Khan vs Deputy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 3 Others

Maharajdeen and Another vs Collector Sitapur and 2 Others

Brisha Bhan Tiwari vs Civil Judge Sadar (Junior Division) Dist. Faizabad and 4 Others

Lokesh Singh Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 12 Others