HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9298 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application is filed with the prayer to relax the condition of anticipatory bail of the applicant to the extent that he may file two sureties and one personal bond of the same amount in all the eight cases and the same may be considered by the court concerned as sureties and bonds in all eight cases, in which, he is enlarged on anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was the Director in the company in question, in which, money was invested by the investors for plots but due to some trivial issues several investors lodged F.I.R. against the company and its directors. He further submits that involvement of the applicant was shown in 11 cases and money is refunded to all the investors, thereafter, in all the cases, he is enlarged on bail but the applicant is not in a position to furnish two sureties in each case, therefore, benefit of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] may be extended to the applicant. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Verma, Shubham Kumar Verma, Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Mani Shushil Kumar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) that huge money is snatched from poor investors in lieu of providing plots to the investors in Time City Multi State Cooperative Housing Society, therefore, applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of Hani Naishad (supra), which is applicable for pity offences. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is undisputed fact that huge amount is involved in crime in question, which was taken from the investors by the applicant and other directors for providing the plots but plots could not be provided to them, this Court is of the view that no interference is required and same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. November 18, 2025 GauraV/- A482 No. 9298 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench