HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24476 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. IInd Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 238 of BNS and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station - Cyber Crime, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the informant had given the said cheque of Rs. 5.25 lakhs to the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR itself is delayed by more than three months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the informant had given an application regarding the said cheque on 19.11.2024 itself but did not care to institute the FIR. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.04.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : J.B. Singh, Vidit Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajeev Dhingra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also considering the inordinate delay of more than three months in lodging the FIR, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Rajeev Dhingra, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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. September 26, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 24476 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad