HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27305 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arun Adhaka, assisted by Ms. Sushmita Mukerjee learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant's company namely, M/s Solutrean Building Technologies Pvt. Ltd is engaged in the business of developing the immovable properties. In the year 2018, the accused Satish Kumar and his relative namely Virendra Kumar came to the informant and apprised themselves that they are engaged in property dealing. They also expressed to sell land of Khasra No. 419, 420, 430 total area 4140/- square meter for a sale consideration of Rs. Nine Crores. The informant's company entered into consolidated sales contract with the accused persons upon which the accused persons (including the applicants) have put their signature as a co-sharer. It is also averred that since 27.05.2019 to 18.09.2023 total amount of Rs. 2,21,62,291/- (Rupees Two crores, twenty one lacs sixty two thousand and two hundred and ninety one only) have been paid to the accused persons including the applicants but the accused persons (including the applicants) have entered into agreement to sell dated 02.02.2024 and 03.02.2024 with M/s Apradhan Benchers Private Ltd. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants along with their mother had taken loan of Rs. 20,235,800/- from the informant's company but the informant's company under the garb of loan had executed an unregistered agreement to sell when as a matter of fact, the applicants had no intention to sell the land in question to the informant's company. He further submits that the applicants are neither involved in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anup Swaroop Srivastava, Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, Shubham Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mintu Kumar And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) any any scam nor their complicity in commission of alleged offence is on individual basis rather the same is consolidated. Learned counsel further argued that the matter is purely of civil nature and at the most the remedy available with the informant to approach the civil Court for redressal of their grievance but at the instance of informant, the civil dispute has been dragged into criminal prosecution of the applicants. He next argued that the offence is triable by Magistrate. It is thus contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required and are also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon them. He next submits that applicants are languishing in jail since 24.05.2025. 4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the accused-applicants. Learned counsel for the informant further argued that there are as many 12 accused persons, out of which, eight accused are absconding against whom process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has also been issued. He further submits that the informant in all have paid Rs. 2,21,62,291/- to the accused persons (including the applicants) but the accused-applicants have entered into agreement to sell dated 02.02.2-024 and 03.02.2024 with another company on account of which, the informant's company suffered huge financial loss. Furthermore, the applicants as well as co- accused have committed forgery and cheating with the informant and in case, they are enlarged on bail, they will misuse the liberty of bail therefore, the applicants are not entitled for bail. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, offence is triable by Magistrate, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 6. Let the applicants Mintu Kumar and Mukesh Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No.14 of 2025 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sector 58, District Gautambudh Nagar on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the BAIL No. 27305 of 2025 2 like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: i) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicants shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicants shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicants are accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 7. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicants in accordance with law. September 4, 2025 S.Ali BAIL No. 27305 of 2025 3 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad