HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12332 of 2025 Court No. - 15 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 FIR No.830 of 2019 under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, in connivance with the co-accused persons, lured the complainant to invest in Shine City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., however, neither any plot has been allotted to the complainant nor has the invested amount been refunded. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was an Additional Director in the aforesaid company. The co-accused Asif Naseem, who is the Managing Director of the company, has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 4382 of 2025. Another co-accused, Amitabh Kumar Srivastava, who was also a Director of the company, has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 2739 of 2025. It is submitted that the role assigned to the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused persons named above, and his case stands on an even better footing. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Tamjeed Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajeev Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant has also explained the criminal history of 40 cases in paragraph 15 of the bail application, which arise out of the same nature of transactions relating to the same company, wherein general allegations have been leveled against the applicant. It is lastly contended that the applicant is in jail since 23.11.2021, and till date, the trial has not commenced. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 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 applicant is in jail since 23.11.2021; that till date the trial has not commenced; the bail orders of the co-accused persons named above; and in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Rajeev Kumar Singh, involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, 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; BAIL No. 12332 of 2025 2 (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. December 11, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 12332 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench