Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22374 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1130 of 2025 Applicant :- Mansingh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.236 of 2024, under Sections 111,318 (4), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) BNS Act and Section 3/21 Banning of Unregulated Deposited Scheme Act, Police Station Mahrauni, District Lalitpur during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR of the present case was lodged against six persons (non-applicants) and according to the FIR, LUCC Company received deposits from the common public through its agents but did not return their amount. 4. He further submits that during investigation applicants have been made accused in the present matter on the ground that they are the agents of the Company. 5. He further submits that if agents, after receiving money from common public, deposited the same in one of the Scheme of the Company and subsequently company failed to return their amount then agents cannot be held liable for the same. 6. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicants are having criminal history of ten other cases but they were not having any previous criminal history and in nine cases they have been made accused along with the present matter with similar allegation. 7. He further submits that 10th case is the case of Gangsters Act in which applicants have been implicated on the basis of present case and above mentioned nine cases. 8. He further submits that however, applicants have also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS, i.e., for organized crime but as neither against the applicants nor any other co- accused persons, any charge sheet was earlier filed, therefore, offence under Section 111 BNS is not made out. 9. He further submits that at this stage it cannot be said that applicants were the members of the alleged syndicate. 10. He further submits that applicants are in jail in the present matter since 23.8.2024, i.e., for almost six months. 11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. As per allegation LUCC Company even after receiving deposits from its investors through its agents failed to return their money but it reflects that applicants were not named in the FIR and during investigation they have been made accused in the present matter on the ground that they were the agents of LUCC Company. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that as they are agents of the Company, therefore, they cannot be held liable if subsequently Company failed to return the amount of its investors cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage. 14. Further, however, applicants have also been challened for offence under Section 111 BNS but it reflects that there is no cogent evidence on record in this regard against the applicants and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants in this regard cannot be ruled out at this stage. 15. However, apart from the present case applicants are having criminal history of ten other cases but their criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and it reflects that they were not having any previous criminal history and in all the cases they have been made accused along with the present matter. 16. Further, in the present matter applicants are in jail since 23.8.2024, i..e, for almost six months. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicants-Mansingh and Ashok Ahirwar 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 20. 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 applicants. 21. 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 :- 17.2.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad