HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11714 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. It is alleged that a written complaint was submitted by the Pick-up on 17.09.2002 to the SHO, Gomti Nagar, making accusations against the applicant and the co-accused persons. On the basis of this written complaint, an FIR was eventually registered on 02.07.2004 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC against the applicant and others. The investigation remained pending for nearly 21 years, and the remand of the applicant has now been sought only under Section 409 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, according to the prosecution case itself, a loan was obtained by the co-accused persons from the Pick-up for the purpose of establishing a factory for the production of methyl alcohol. The applicant was the director of the company as well as one of the guarantors. It is alleged that the loan amount was never repaid and the property documents furnished at the time of securing the loan were later found to be forged. It is contended that even as per the prosecution case, the loan was sanctioned only after verification of the loan application and the supporting property documents that had been pledged. After the loan was taken, by order dated 18.02.2002 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Company Application No. 2 of 2001 (B.I.F.R. v. M/s Vijai Shree Chemicals (I) Ltd.), an Official Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Sharma, Aakash Rai, Sharad Nandan Ojha, Vaibhav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sharad Kumar Chaturvedi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Liquidator was appointed, and the company has since been under his possession and control. If the Pick-up had any grievance, it is argued, they could have approached the competent forum at that stage. No fair or meaningful investigation has been conducted. Despite the loan having been sanctioned in 1993 and the FIR having been registered in 2004, no charge sheet has been filed till date. It is further submitted that the applicant, now 66 years of age and having no criminal antecedents, has been arrested without justification in the year 2025, and he is suffering from various serious ailments. The medical records of the applicant is annexed as Annexure No. 15 to the bail application. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute pertains to a debtor–creditor relationship arising out of a loan transaction, and non-payment of the loan amount, even if assumed, would give rise to civil liability rather than criminal prosecution. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Hero Fincorp Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1727 wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that disputes arising out of loan transactions, even when allegations of non- repayment are made, ordinarily give rise to civil consequences rather than criminal liability unless specific ingredients of the alleged offences are established. The said decision underscores that criminal prosecution should not be used to settle purely civil or contractual disputes. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned AGA, while opposing the bail application on instructions, submits that the allegations are general in nature and no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for arresting the applicant after an unexplained delay of twenty-one years. Considering that the alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate; the applicant has no criminal antecedents; he is in custody since 08.10.2025; and despite the lapse of approximately twenty-one years since registration of the FIR no charge sheet has been filed, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. BAIL No. 11714 of 2025 2 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sharad Kumar Chaturvedi, involved in Case Crime No. 43 of 2004, Under Section 409 IPC, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, 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. 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 R.C. BAIL No. 11714 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench