Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 155091 (ALL)

AMIT SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO.

BAIL/7064/2025 · 2025-07-31

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44478 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7064 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Pandey,Shivam Srivastava 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 as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.179 of 2021 under Sections 420, 120B Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the pretext of providing a house in Awas Vikas Parishad, U.P., Lucknow, the co- accused Rajendra Prasad received money in the State Bank account of his wife. It is further alleged that Amit Srivastava, the present applicant, was given an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by Ram Surat Mali for the purpose of allotment of a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana through the co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of up to seven years. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Rajendra Prasad, who received the amount on multiple dates in the bank account of his wife, has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, as evident from Annexure-5 to the bail application. It is contended that the case of the present applicant stands on a better footing than that of the co-accused Rajendra Prasad. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no amount has been received in the applicant’s account and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The offence is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant is in jail since 01.05.2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, the co-accused has been granted bail by the learned court below, and taking into account the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant since 01.05.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Amit Srivastava be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench