[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Himanshu Singh vs State Of U.P. on 3 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:71543
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 720 of 2026
Himanshu Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Dev Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Apurva Hajela, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Dev Kant Trigunait, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Apurva Hajela, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC, Police Station- Chetganj, District Varanasi.
3. As per prosecution story, the co-accused Kavaldhari Yadav along with Anil Kumar Srivastava were Directors of the Company namely M/s Nilambar Trexim and Credit Private Ltd. and first informant was the Manager of that company. As per FIR, allegation is that though co-accused Kavaldhari Yadav being the Director of the company, was authorised to operate the accounts of the company, who unauthorisedly transferred Rs. 5,02,76,435.53 initially in the second account of the company which is meant for sale and purchase of shares. Thereafter he transferred that amount to relatives and friends in collusion with Branch Manager of the Bank namely Ashish Tripathi as well as other bank officials of Yes Bank including the present applicant. Apart from this, the co-accused Kavaldhari Yadav also purchased insurance policies in his name as well as in the name of family members from Max Life Insurance Co.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is not in dispute that Kevaldhari Yadav was not only a director of the concerned company in question but also authorised person of the company to operate the accounts and the applicant was Deputy Manager in the Yes Bank working as maker (inputter), he inputted the aforesaid transaction in system bonafidely which was further checked by checkers, therefore, he has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that simply, the applicant has issued two Max Life Insurance to co-accused Kavaldhari Yadvi on behalf of Yes Bank which will not attract any criminal liability. It is further submitted that not a single money was transferred in the account of the applicant or his family members, therefore he is not beneficiary in any manner of the aforesaid fraud committed by the Director of the Company Kavaldhari Yadav. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history except one case which has already been explained in the accompanying affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.11.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that though the applicant being a bank official of the company was required to properly check why the huge amount is being transferred by the Director Kevaldhari Yadav into another account and thereafter in different other accounts. Therefore, the applicant was also involved in the aforesaid conspiracy. It is also submitted by the counsel for the first informant that two Max Life Insurance policy was also issued by the applicant on behalf of the Yes Bank, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not concerned any manner with the aforesaid fraud committed by co-accused Kavaldhari Yadav. Learned counsel for the first informant has also relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Mittal vs Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and another in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.19708 of 2025, wherein Apex Court has observed that where a person involved in offence of pecuniary nature wherein innocent persons are cheated of their hard earned money then such cases should be dealt with as an offence of heinous crime.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the applicant being Deputy Manager of the Bank was authorised to issue Max Life Insurance Policy to the co-accused Kevaldhari Yadav as well as inputted the transfers of money in system being maker as co-accused Kevaldhari Yadav was authorised representative of company to operate the accounts of the company, no money was transferred in his account and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Himanshu Singh involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-
i. The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
12. It is directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
April 3, 2026
A.Kr.
