HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33446 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Tiwary, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajkapoor Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 435 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 315(2) BNS, Police Station Izat Nagar, District Bareilly during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Abhishek Saxena duped the informant and received about 12,50,000/- from him under false promise to provide job to him but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false. 4. He further submits, except Rs. 50,000/- which was transferred by the informant in the account of applicant there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant received such huge amount from the informant as alleged by him. 5. He further submits, actually applicant is close relative of co-accused Abhishek Saxena and dispute of Abhishek Saxena and informant was pending with regard to dishonor of the cheque which was issued by son of informant and in this regard Abhishek Saxena also gave a legal notice to him which has been annexed at page-62 of the paper-book and during the course of settlement the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was transferred in the account of applicant as applicant was relative of co-accused Abhishek Saxena. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Rajkapoor Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ekta Anand .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. He further submits, even from the entire material available on record it reflects, informant was dishonest person who wanted to obtain job by illegal means. 7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two cases but his criminal history has been explained in the bail application and in one case his bail is pending and in another case investigation is still pending. 8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 06.05.2025 i.e. for last more than eleven months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Abhishek Saxena under false promise to provide job to the informant received Rs.12,50,000/- from him but except Rs.50,000/- there is no other evidence which can suggests that applicant received any money from him and considering the legal notice sent by co-accused Abhishek Saxena to the son of informant the explanation given by learned counsel for applicant with regard to Rs.50,000/- cannot be ruled out at this stage. 12. Further, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that even informant appears to be dishonest person who wanted to obtain job by illegal means. 13. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two cases but his criminal history has been explained in the bail application and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 06.05.2025 i.e. for last more than eleven months. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant - Ekta Anand be released on bail in the aforesaid case BAIL No. 33446 of 2025 2 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. April 23, 2026 AK Pandey BAIL No. 33446 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad