Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23212 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2697 of 2025 Applicant :- Mujakat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Maurya,Shweta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankur Goyal,G.A.,Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 569 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sector 63 NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is further stated that an amount of Rs.2,96,13,825/- is stated to have been transferred in the account of the applicant and an amount of Rs.2,96,00,471/- was transferred to several other accounts as per directions of the main accused Ravindra Sharma and the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that bail application of the brother of the applicant Nazakat has been rejected by this Court and the same stands confirmed by the Supreme Court as the applicant had filed an S.L.P. before the Supreme Court which has been dismissed as withdrawn on 24.10.2024. The FIR itself indicates that there are several other unknown persons involved in the racket. 7. The modus operandi of the applicant and his brother is one and the same as an amount of Rs.4,60,33,317/- was credited in his account, as such the applicant, being hand-in-glove with the co-accused person, is not entitled for bail. 8. Learned State Law Officer has further stated that as far as the period of limitation is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 607 has held that no time limit for the prosecution evidence can be fixed by any Court whatsoever, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant, being hand-in-glove with the co-accused person, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 12. 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 :- 18.2.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad