HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9044 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.24 of 2025 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 406, 420 of IPC registered at Police Station- Gurbuxganj, District- Raebareli. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 28.014.2025 against ten named persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant and several other persons had invested more than Rs.2 crore in Pashudhan Co-operative Society Ltd., Pashupati Mutual Benefit Nidhi Ltd. and P.L.M. India Ltd. but no money was returned to investors and the entire amount was invested by co-accused Om Prakash Gupta in purchasing properties. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. In para-27 of the affidavit, the applicant's involvement in 4 other cases has been disclosed, in one of which, he has been granted bail and those cases are also of similar nature. 6. A co-accused, namely, Babulal Gupta has already been granted bail by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Yadav, Dinesh Pratap Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajay Kumar Gupta .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) means of an order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7238 of 2025. 7. A list of shareholders of the Company issued by its Directors has been annexed as Annexure No.3 which shows that the applicant is not the Director of the company. 8. Although the learned AGA has opposed the bail application but instructions provided to him did not contain anything to the affect that the applicant is a Director of any of the aforesaid Companies. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the grievance of the informant is regarding non- payment of investments made in a Company and it appears that the informant himself was fetching investment of the company; although the applicant is named in the FIR, the applicant is neither a Director nor any other principal position holder in the Company and that the applicant has already been granted bail in two other cases of similar nature, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid case. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Ajay Kumar Gupta be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. September 24, 2025 V. Sinha BAIL No. 9044 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench