HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9866 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant, while he was constructing his house, was in need of some money. It is alleged that the co- accused Praveen Kumar Yadav pursuaded him to stop his work and invest Rs. 15 lakhs in his company, in lieu of that, he promised that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- per month shall be paid by him and after ten years the amount deposited by him shall be refunded. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that during investigation, the informant has settled the matter with co-accused Ravindra Kumar Yadav and his name has been removed from investigation. It is alleged that the informant has paid Rs. 10 lakhs through RTGS in the account of the applicant, which shows that it is pure money transaction and the dispute is purely civil in nature, otherwise the offence is triable by the Magistrate. 4. He further submits that the chargesheet has been filed and the F.I.R has been registered after delay of more than two years. The applicant has explained criminal history in para-18 of the affidavit filed along with the bail application. 5. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Chandra Shukla, Vishal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Ranjeet Kumar Maurya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the F.I.R has been registered after a delay of about two years, the chargesheet has been filed, the fact that applicant has explained the criminal history of 13 cases in the affidavit filed along with the bail application, the fact that the applicant is in languishing in jail since 12.06.2025, as also the fact that the offences are triable by Magistrate, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Ranjeet Kumar Maurya involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 353/2022, Under Sections- 420 I.P.C, Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Ayodhya, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). BAIL No. 9866 of 2025 2 10. 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. October 14, 2025 DiVYa BAIL No. 9866 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench