Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 141937 (ALL)

SATISH KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/884/2025 · 2025-07-21

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41518 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 884 of 2025 Applicant :- Satish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amitesh Pratap Singh,Abhijeet P. Singh Chauhan,Akar Srivastava,Ashutosh Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed in connection with Case Crime No. 0139 of 2025, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow. As per the prosecution case, there is a specific allegation against the applicant that he, in connivance with co-accused persons, lured the complainant to pay Rs.84,50,000/- on the basis of forged documents, with the false assurance of providing a plot. It is further alleged that neither was any land allotted to the complainant nor was the amount returned. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's role was limited to merely introducing the complainant to co-accused Musafir Singh. He is not a beneficiary of the alleged transaction. It is submitted that no amount was credited to the applicant’s account. Further, it is contended that since the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonored, the complainant could have availed remedy under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application. Perused the record. Considering the serious nature of the allegations involving cheating and forgery, which are punishable with imprisonment for life; the substantial amount involved; and the fact that prima facie complicity of the applicant is evident from the material on record, it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated or that the FIR has been lodged with mala fide intent to injure the reputation of the applicant. No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench