Ramnaresh Sahu vs State of U.P.

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0006 of 2026, under Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 352, 351(3), 336(3), 340 of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Talbehat, District Lalitpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, during pendency of the investigation/trial.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He seeks anticipatory bail on the following grounds :-

¶12

i. The applicant is an agent of Loni Urban Multi State Credit and Thrift Cooperative Society ( hereinafter referred to as "LUCC" ).

¶13

ii. The applicant has not been named in the First Information Report (FIR).

¶14

iii. The applicant has been implicated in various cases in the States of Uttar Pradesh on account of LUCC defaulting in payment of the maturity amounts.

¶15

iv. The applicant is on bail in all the other cases.

¶16

v. LUCC is undergoing proceeding of winding up and, once a liquidator has been appointed, any person having a grievance against the Company or seeking any dues from the Company may approach the liquidator.

¶17

vi. The applicant cannot be held responsible if the Company refuses or is unable to pay the maturity amount.

¶18

vii. The applicant has been implicated in 14 criminal cases in State of Uttar Pradesh and, in all the said cases, the applicant is on bail except in the present case.

¶19

viii. Similarly situated co-accused Alok Jain Urf Alok Kumar Jain, who was an agent of LUCC, has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide its order dated

¶20

NABAIL No. 2113 of 2026

¶21

2

¶22

16.03.2026 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2490 of 2026 ( Alok Jain Urf Alok Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. and Another ) .

¶23

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is a member of an organized crime syndicate. He further submitted that the applicant has duped depositors of billions of rupees; therefore, no indulgence may be granted to him. However, he does not dispute the explanation given by the applicant with respect to the criminal history.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

The applicant is stated to be an agent of LUCC. The crux of the allegations, as reflected in the FIR, which has been lodged on the basis of an application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. against one Deepak and 8-10 unknown persons, is that certain amounts were deposited by the informant and his wife with the LUCC as fixed deposits and recurring deposits. However, despite the maturity date of the recurring deposits and fixed deposits being in the year 2024, said amounts were not repaid. The applicant is neither the Director of the Company nor is he stated to be in charge of the affairs of the Company. Similarly situated co-accused Alok Jain Urf Alok Kumar Jain, who was an agent of LUCC, has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide its order dated 16.03.2026 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2490 of 2026 ( Alok Jain Urf Alok Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. and Another ).

¶26

As stated above, the applicant was not named in the FIR and is merely an agent. He is on bail in all the cases except the present case. No allegation of misuse of the conditions of bail imposed upon the applicant have been made by the learned A.G.A.

¶27

Taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 193(3) of the B.N.S.S.

¶28

The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶29

In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Ramnaresh Sahu , involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, till filing of the police report under Section 193(3) of the B.N.S.S., on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶30

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶31

NABAIL No. 2113 of 2026

¶32

3

¶33

ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer;

¶34

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶35

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶36

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶37

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶38

March 19, 2026 Sachin

¶39

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramnaresh Sahu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnaresh Sahu 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Jain Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Hudda vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra @ Harindra Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Chandra Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabhudayal vs State of U.P. and Another