Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16542 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2707 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahesh Prasad Rajak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 647 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 336(3), 61(2), 340(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 3/21 B.U.D.S. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against members and Directors of the LUCC company with the allegation that after receiving huge amount from the common public company failed to return their amount and during investigation, only being one of the agent of the company, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that in paragraph no. 42 of the affidavit applicant specifically made an averment that applicant is the agent of the company. He further submitted that if through agent of the company investors deposited money in the company and thereafter company failed to return their money then agent of the company cannot be held liable. 4. He further submitted that applicant was not having any previous criminal history but along with the present matter, he has been made accused in as many as 11 other cases with similar allegations and his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. 5. He further submitted that, however, in the present matter applicant has also been challaned for the offense under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but there is no evidence of organized crime against him on record. 6. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 15.08.2024 i.e. for last more than five months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that LUCC company after receiving huge amount from the common public through its agent did not return their maturity amount but could not dispute the fact that applicant is only agent in the company. 8. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is however, having criminal history of 11 other cases but he was not having any previous criminal history and along with the present matter, he has been made accused in all the 11 cases with similar allegation. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than five months. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. From the record, it reflects that as per allegation, after receiving money, LUCC company did not return the same to its investors and during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that he is one of the agent of the company and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if LUCC company after receiving huge amount of money from its investors through its agent failed to return their maturity amount then being agent of the company, applicant cannot be held liable, cannot be completely ruled out. Further, the fact that applicant was agent in the company has not been controverted by learned AGA. 11. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 11 other cases but it reflects that he was not having any previous criminal history and simultaneously he has been made accused in all these cases including present case with similar allegation. Further, criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application. 12. Further, however, in the present matter applicant has also been challaned for the offense under Section 111 BNS i.e. for organized crime but except the bald and verbal allegation, it appears, there is no evidence in this regard against him on record. 13. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.08.2024 i.e. for last more than five months. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant- Mahesh Prasad Rajak 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:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (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. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 17. 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. 18. 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. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad