UDAY ZILLU HANJANKAR @ UDAI DHEELU AJANKAR @ UDAY ZEELU HAJANKAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO
ABAIL/913/2025 · 2025-08-22
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 159297 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 159297 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49365 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 913 of 2025 Applicant :- Uday Zillu Hanjankar @ Udai Dheelu Ajankar @ Uday Zeelu Hajankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Diwakar Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.98 of 2024, under Sections 406/409/420/506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 18.03.2024 against the applicant and co- accused Rajesh Agrawal stating that the co-accused Rajesh Agrawal is a friend of the complainant. The co-accused is the proprietor of a firm titled as Mata Prasad Bhooralal & Sons and the applicant is his partner. At the suggestion of the co-accused Rajesh Agrawal the applicant invested Rs.92.5 lacs in his business but later on co-accused Rajesh Agrawal stopped communicating with the complainant and he did not pay any amount to the complainant. In the affidavit filed in support the application it has been stated that the applicant has no connection with the firm Mata Prasad Bhooralal & Sons. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail- application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent and he has no criminal history. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in two other criminal cases. The proceedings of one of the cases have been stayed by this court and in the other case the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 6.
Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged after the complainant did not get any return on the money invested by him in a commercial venture allegedly at the instance of co-accused Rajesh Agrawal; that the applicant has been implicated only on the basis of his being partner of the co- accused Rajesh Agrawal, whereas the applicant has categorically stated that he has no concern with the firm Mata Prasad Bhooralal & Sons and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Uday Zillu Hanjankar @ Udai Dheelu Ajankar @ Uday Zeelu Hajankar before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 himself 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 :- 22.8.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench