Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28699 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/ S 482 BNSS No. - 333 of 2025 Applicant :- Uttam Kumar Singh Rajput @ Uttam Singh Rajput Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lalta Prasad Misra,Shashank Shekhar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Dr. L.P. Misra and Shri Shashank Shekhar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. The is an application seeking anticipatory bail of the applicant in Case Crime No.292 of 2024 under Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Badosarai, District- Barabanki. 3. The learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection that the present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail for the offences under Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. Section 111 B.N.S. deals with organized crimes and it carries a punishment of imprisonment for life and a fine which shall not been less than Rs.10 Lakhs and, therefore, the applicant should not be granted anticipatory bail. 4. In Section 111 (1)(ii) B.N.S. which describes "continuing unlawful activity" and explains that an activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence. 5. In response to a specific question put by the Court, the learned AGA had sought time to seek instructions and on the basis of instructions has informed the Court that no charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant till date and no Court has taken cognizance of any offence against the applicant. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned could not dispute that the offence under Section 11 B.N.S. prima facie does not appear to have been made out against the applicant. 7. The next preliminary objection raised by the learned AGA is that during investigation, Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(5) of B.N.S. have been added. The applicant has not filed any application seeking anticipatory bail in those Sections before the Session Court and he had merely filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. before the Session Court. As several new Sections have been added during investigation, the applicant should first approach the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail in the added Sections and it is only thereafter the applicant can file an application seeking anticipatory bail from this Court. 8. In Ankit Bharti v. Sate of U.P.: 2020 SCC Online All 1949, a Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court has held that an application for anticipatory bail can be filed before this court directly in exceptional circumstances. When the applicant had already approached the Session court praying for grant of anticipatory bail in furtherance of the FIR in question and his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has already been rejected by a detailed reasoned order dated 24.03.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Barabanki wherein only the facts of the case have been taken into consideration and no Section has been referred to, there is every likelihood that in case the applicant approaches the Session Court seeking anticipatory bail in the Sections added on the basis of facts of the case, which have already been dealt with in the order dated 24.03.2025, the applicant will be undertaking an exercise in futility as that application in all likelihood will meet the same fate. 9. The third preliminary objection raised by the learned AGA is that proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant which has been published in a newspaper on 17.02.2025. However, there is no mention of this fact in the counter affidavit filed by the State on 21.04.2025 or in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 14.05.2025. 10. In case a proclamation had been issued, which was meant to be brought to the knowledge of the public at large, the conduct of the State in keeping it to itself and not bringing on record by annexing the same with the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit cannot be appreciated by the court. 11. The learned AGA has not been provided information regarding a declaration under Section 83 Cr.P.C. having been issued by the trial Court. 12. The applicant had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court on 27.02.2025, which was rejected on 24.03.2025. The applicant has approached this Court by filing this application on 15.04.2025 wherein there is nothing on record of this Court to indicate that a Proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued and a declaration under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been made, I am of the view that the application seeking anticipatory bail needs to be considered on is merits. 13. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 27.11.2024 against 12 named persons, including the applicant, and other unnamed employees, Managers, etc. of LUCC Company, stating that brokers Ram Naresh Verma, Gulshan and Anarkali had persuaded the informant to make investments in Loni Urban Multi State Credit and Thrift Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as LUCC). Accounts were opened in the name of the informant and her family members and about Rs.8 Lakhs were invested in the Society. However, when the informant demanded returns on her investments upon completion of its period, the accused persons abused and threatened her. The informant came to know through newspapers that LUCC has an organized gang which opens its branches at several places which are run by some persons under supervision of the applicant. The persons running the office have closed the branches and ran away. 14. In the affidavit filed in support of the affidavit it has been stated that the applicant did not possess any position in the LUCC and he himself was an investor in the Company. Some fixed deposit certificates issued by LUCC have been annexed with the bail application in support of this contention. The list of Directors of the Company has been annexed with the anticipatory bail application, which does not include the name of the applicant. 15. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail application and it has been stated therein that the applicant is the master mind and a very clever person who has not come forward on any document but as a matter of fact he is the most influential and instrumental person who has been playing the entire game with the assistance of the other accused persons, including his wife. Some photographs have been annexed with the counter affidavit showing the applicant and depicting him as an influential person. However, the photographs are not sufficient to prima facie establish the criminality of the applicant in commission of any offence. 16. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the State annexing therewith the relevant extracts of case diary as per which, three persons, namely, Sanjeev Verma, Manoj Kumar Maurya and Ram Naresh Verma sitting in two parked vehicles were arrested by the police. In his custodial statement, Sanjeev Verma stated that both the vehicles belong to the applicant who is a chest core team member of the Society. He stated that both the vehicles are kept under his supervision. He further claimed that his position is below the applicant and his wife Maya. 17. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR is of having made investments in a Co-operative Society and non-return of the same. 18. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State that the applicant is not connected with the Society as per the documents of the Society but he is the master mind behind it. 19. Unless the applicant holds any position in the society or any amount has been entrusted to him or has been misappropriated by him or someone has been cheated by him, he cannot be held guilty of any such offences. 20. While clarifying that any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 21. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed. 22. In the event of arrest/appearance of applicant- Uttam Kumar Singh Rajput @ Uttam Singh Rajput before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (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 or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 15.5.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench