HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12406 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. Sri Rama Niwas Pathak, Advocate, has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, which is taken on record. Accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 414 of 2020 under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S.-Kotwali Nagar, District-Ayodhya. This is the second bail application. First bail application i.e. Bail No. 4664 of 2020 (Ranjeet Kumar Maurya vs. State of U.P.) has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2020. However, the applicant was unable to comply the conditions imposed on him due to financial constraints and therefore was arrested and sent to jail. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that about ten months prior to the date of the application/written report, Ranjit Maurya, owner of SSG Group, approached the complainant and, after showing some forged papers, assured him that he would earn a huge profit and took Rs. Six Lakh in cash from him. It is further alleged that the accused-applicant issued a cheque which was subsequently dishonoured, and thereafter the FIR was registered. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no evidence of the alleged cash transaction of Rs. Six Lakh. No time, date, or year has been mentioned regarding when the amount was allegedly paid. It is further submitted that the date on which the cheque was dishonoured has 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) also not been mentioned in the FIR. Neither has any complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act been filed by the complainant, nor has any notice under the N.I. Act for the alleged dishonoured cheque been issued. It is contended that no such payment was ever made by the informant to the accused applicant. It is further submitted that the dispute is civil in nature. The applicant had already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2020 passed in Bail No. 4664 of 2020, however, stringent conditions were imposed upon him, including the requirement to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month to the complainant. Due to financial difficulty, the applicant was unable to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2020 and on account of such non-compliance, he was arrested and sent to jail. A modification application of the bail order was also moved by the applicant, but the same was dismissed as not pressed. It is also submitted that applicant has explained the criminal history of 13 cases in para 22 of the bail application. The offence is triable by a Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is upto seven years. 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 for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has disputed the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant in Case Crime No. 438 of 2022 under Sections 420, 406 IPC. In response, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the very fact that the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court indicates that, if the complainant feels aggrieved, he may move an application for cancellation of the said anticipatory bail. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.06.2025, the offences are triable by a Magistrate, prima facie it appears that the applicant was unable to fulfill the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2020 while granting bail due to financial constraints and further, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex BAIL No. 12406 of 2025 2 Court in Delhi Race Club Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690, wherein it has been held that the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go hand in hand, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Ranjeet Kumar Maurya, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail 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 12, 2025 Vinay/- BAIL No. 12406 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench