HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32576 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 3. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Vivek Tripathi seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.149 of 2025, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 16.7.2025. It is submitted that the FIR has been registered on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./173(4) B.N.S.S. at a very belated stage in the year 2025, whereas the incident has occurred on 16.5.2016. It is further submitted that several FIRs have been lodged against the applicant on the same type of allegation and in all the FIRs same invoice has been used by the informant only to harass the applicant. It is argued that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant regarding commissioning of forgery. It is further argued that 51 criminal cases have been registered against the applicant but in most of the above cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail and details of all the above cases have been annexed with the bail applicantion as annexure no.6. It is lastly submitted that the matter is essentially related to business transaction. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Madhur Prasad, Malay Prasad, Saloni Mathur, Tanya Makker Vivek Tripathi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above arguments and submits that applicant has filed bail application before Hon'ble Supreme Court and his bail has been rejected by the Supreme Court by mentioning the fact that '.........Recording the aforesaid, we decline to interfere with the impugned order denying bail to the appellant. However, it will be open to the appellant to file a fresh application for bail in case of changed circumstances or in case the trial is getting delay for the fault of the prosecution, or is not concluded on or before 31.3.2023'. It is submitted that accused applicant and other co- accused persons are the family members/relatives who have received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in the name of TFF company and co-accused Sumit Awasthi has informed the informant that other co-accused persons are the representative of TFF company and suggested the informant to pay the above amount to them. It is further submitted that on the false promise that applicant and other co-accused persons are genuine and reliable persons, the informant has paid Rs.15 lakhs but later on applicant who is closely associated with co-accused Sumit Awasthi has taken cash amount by giving receipt and the informant has come to know that all the receipts are forged. It is argued that when the information was given to co-accused Sumit Awasthi regarding the fact that Rs.15 lakhs is his arrears to TFF company in the year 2021 then applicant and other co-accused persons have fraudulently taken the money and not deposited the money in TFF company. It is further argued that the applicant has formed a forged company by the name of Biomass Technical Solution Pvt. Ltd. in which applicant and other co-accused persons who are named in the FIR are the beneficiary. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has long criminal history of 38 cases from the year 2015 to 2025 which includes many cases of forgery etc, four cases of Gangsters Act in different districts like Kanpur Nagar, Lucknow, Unnao and also in different state like Karnataka. Submission is that the applicant is a habitual offender and if he is released on bail he may again involve in same kind of illegal activities, may adversely affect the trial of the case by way of pressurizing/intimidating the prosecution witnesses. 6. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the role and involvement of applicant, criminal BAIL No. 32576 of 2025 2 history of applicant, seriousness of case, gravity of the accusation, reasonable possibility of intimidating/pressurizing the prosecution witnesses and reasonable possibility to delay/intervene the trial proceeding, I find no good ground to grant bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case, at this stage. 7. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 8. The trial Court is directed to proceed the trial and to conclude the trial expeditiously, from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment. October 14, 2025 RA BAIL No. 32576 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad