Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34709 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8291 of 2025 Applicant :- Neeraj Jain Alias Bunty Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlakar Dwivedi,Kunjesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Kunjesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 61 (2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 3/21 Banning of the Unregulated Deposit Scheme Restriction, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and two others and as per the FIR, applicant was one of the agents of the LUCC company and being agent, he alongwith others collected the money from the investor of the company and thereafter company failed to return their money. 4. He further submitted that if after collection of money through its agent, company misappropriated the money then agent of the company cannot be held liable for it. 5. He further submitted that during investigation, number of other accused persons were also made accused on the ground that they were also agents of the LUCC company including co-accused Satish Chandra Jain, Ram Naresh Sahu and Man Singh and they have already been released on bail by this Court and their bail orders have been annexed as annexure-6 to the affidavit and case of applicant, as far as allegations are concerned, is at par with them. 6. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant was not having any previous criminal history but alongwith the present matter with similar allegations, he has been made accused in as many as ten other cases and his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. He further submitted that even the above named three accused persons who have already been released on bail were also having criminal history of similar nature. 7. He further submitted that however, applicant was also challaned for offence under section 111BNS but there is no cogent evidence against the applicant with regard to the offence of organized crime. 8. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 22.7.2024 i.e for last more than seven months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments 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 depositors deposited their money in LUCC Company through their agents and subsequently company failed to repay their amount but considering the fact that applicant is the agent of the company, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage. 12. Further, co-accused Satish Chandra Jain, Ram Naresh Sahu and Man Singh who were also agents of the company have already been released on bail by this Court. 13. Further, however, it reflects, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of ten other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and it reflects that he was not having any previous criminal history and alongwith the present matter, he has been made accused in all these cases with similar allegations. Further, even above three named accused persons who have already been released on bail by this Court were also having criminal history of similar nature. 14. Further, however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under section 111BNS but it appears there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record with regard to the offence under section 111 BNS. 15. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 22.7.2024 i.e for last more than seven months. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant-Neeraj Jain Alias Bunty Jain, be released on bail in the aforesaid case 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad