Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89112 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16972 of 2025 Applicant :- Manoj Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hanuman Deen Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 536 of 2024, under Sections 223, 61(2), 319(2), 318(4), 111 BNS & 8/13 U.P. Public Examination Act, Police Station- Bansgaon, District- Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and as per FIR, on the basis of Adhar verification named co-accused Ratnesh Kumar Chaudhary, who was appearing in the examination, managed to escape from the examination hall but subsequently, during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of statement of co-accused Ratnesh and according to him, he transferred Rs. 3 lakhs in the account of the applicant as applicant assured him for job. 4. He further submitted that totally on the basis of different allegation, applicant has been roped in the present matter and however, entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false but even if allegations are accepted then also it reflects, applicant is having no concern with the FIR of the present case. He next submits, if applicant obtained money from co-accused Ratnesh under the false promise to provide job then a separate FIR should be lodged and in any case applicant cannot be challaned for the offence of organized crime. He further submitted that it reflects, Investigating Officer of the case misused the provisions of organized crime. He further submitted that absolutely there is no evidence, which can suggests that applicant was either member of any organized crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate. 5. He further submitted that however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to offence under Section 363 IPC and in that case, he is on bail. 6. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 06.04.2025. 7. Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. From the record, it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR and as per allegation made in the FIR named accused managed to escape from the examination hall under the pretext for verification of his Adhar and it reflects, during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of the statement of named accused Ratnesh but from the statement of co-accused Ratnesh, it reflects, he deposited Rs. three lakhs in the account of the applicant as applicant assured him for job. Considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of irrelevant allegation, which was having no concern with the present case, applicant has been made accused in the present matter, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 10. Further, there is no evidence on record, which can suggests that the alleged Rs. three lakhs, which was transferred in the account of applicant by co-accused Ratnesh, was the proceed of crime. 11. Further, it also reflects, there is no cogent evidence that applicant was either member of any organized crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate but in spite of that he has aslo been challaned for the offence of organized crime. 12. Further, however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to offence under Section 363 IPC and in that case, he is on bail. 13. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 06.04.2025. 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- Manoj Chaudhary 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. 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. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad