Allahabad High Court

PRAVEEN KUMAR KATARIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 9 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail in the present case.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Praveen Kumar Katariya under Section 483 of the CrPC in a case registered under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the IPC, relating to alleged fraudulent investment schemes involving NFC coins. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the transactions were purely commercial between the informant, co‑accused Sarwar and Sameer, and that there was no material linking him to the alleged offence. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix, while the applicant highlighted that the charge sheet had been filed, no charges were yet framed, and a co‑accused had already been released on bail. The Court examined the nature of the alleged offence, the evidence on record, the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents, and the principle that bail should be granted unless the prosecution can show a substantial risk of tampering or non‑appearance. Finding that the applicant had made out a case for bail and that the allegations were essentially commercial, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 CrPC to an accused in a non‑bailable offence under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) IPC.
Whether the alleged investment scheme constitutes a criminal offence or a commercial dispute.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
Whether the filing of a charge sheet without framing of charges affects the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 316(2), 318(4)

Subjects

bail
non‑bailable offence
Section 483 CrPC
IPC Sections 318, 316
commercial fraud
NFC coins
charge sheet
prior criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36546 of 2025

Praveen Kumar Katariya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Srijan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajesh
Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed
seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2025 under
Section 318 (4), 316 (2) BNS, Police Station-Kairana, District-Shamli,
during the pendency of the trial before before the Court below. The bail
application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge
Shamli at Kairana vide order dated 08.07.2025 and the applicant is
languishing in jail since 05.05.2025.

Shri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the
bail plea submits that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. It is
contended that the First Information Report giving rise to the case crime
in question was lodged nominating the applicant and two other persons
alleging that about 2 years back the co-accused Sarwar stated to be an
acquaintance of the first informant brought the applicant and co-accused
Sameer to the house of the first informant and introduced the applicant as
his business partner and Director of a trading firm in the name and style
of Netro Express. The firm assures many fold returns of the investment
after two years. Sarwar stated that if an amount of Rs. 5,13,000/- is
invested, the Firm would give back 3000 NFC Coins on the official App
which would be held for 24 months and after expiry of the said period the
firm would continue giving 24 NFC Coins per week on the App.The
BAIL No. 36546 of 2025
2

value of the coins could be checked on 'liverate' and one could withdraw
the equivalent cash amount either through the Liverate or through the said
firm's App. Certain other attractive offers were made under the scheme
floated by the firm. The applicant is alleged to have invested a sum of Rs.
2,63,000/- in cash. His online registration was done and 3000 coins were
transferred. The applicant further invested a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and
70,000/- into the account of co-accused Sarwar on 02.11.2022 and Sarwar
is stated to have issued a Cheque bearing No. 756942 for Rs. 5,13,000/- in
favour of the informant. The Informant admits that he was paid Rs.
40,000/-, 1,00,000/-, 50,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- (i.e. total of Rs. 2,70,000)
by co accused Sarwar as a return on investment. It is also admitted that
Sarwar asked the informant to return the cheque of Rs. 5,13,000/- and he
would pay the balance amount directly into the Bank account of the
informant and later denied to make the payment.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that all the
transactions have been conducted between the informant and the co-
accused Sarwar and Sameer and there is no evidence on record to
remotely connect the applicant with the offence alleged. In any case
learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the allegation the
dispute between the parties is essentially commercial in nature and has
been given a colour of criminality. As per the allegations in the First
Information Report no offence under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2) BNS can
be said to be made out against the applicant. No specific role of
inducement and/or entrustment has been alleged against the applicant.
The applicant is neither the Director or the owner of the Firm and is
merely the promoter of the NFC Coins mode of transaction known to
Yield high returns for investors. It is also argued that such transactions are
legal in India but attract high taxation. It is also argued that value of NFC
coins are subject to market fluctuations and the applicant does not have
any control over the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has next
argued that charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed on
06.05.2025 and investigation against the applicant stands concluded.
Further custodial interrogation is not required. It has also been argued that
though charge sheet was filed as far back as on 05.05.2025 the charges
have yet not been framed against the applicant and the trial is yet to
BAIL No. 36546 of 2025
3

commence. Co-accused Sameer has already been enlarged on bail vide
order dated 08.07.2025. The applicant has criminal antecedents of 3 other
cases which have been duly explained in para 54 of the bail application.
The applicant is not a beneficiary of the transactions and undertakes to
cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence bail
prayed for.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant
but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on
record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Praveen Kumar Katariya, involved in aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local
sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to the following conditions:-

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses
and co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
April 10, 2026
Deepak/

Digitally signed by :-
DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…