Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93693 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10023 of 2025 Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Goyal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 498 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Gulawati, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have purchased a land from the informant for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs. Nine Lacs) and had given the said amount through three cheques but subsequently it transpired that the applicant did not give any cheque to the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about three years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The truth is that the applicant, who happens to be the real estate developer, had executed the sale deed and transferred the amount in the account of the informant through RTGS but inadvertently, it was mentioned in the registry that he had given three cheques worth Rs.nine lacs to the informant, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. 6. The criminal history of 44 cases assigned to the applicant has been explained as only in 4 cases out of the 44 cases, he has yet to be enlarged on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties the evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Sudhir Kumar Goyal, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad