VINAY SHANKAR LALversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8942 of 2026

Vinay Shankar Lal
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Abhishek Kumar Raghuvanshi, Sunil
                                Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

Heard Shri P. C. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Sunil Kumar Pandey and Shri Anand Pratap Singh, learned counsel for
the applicant, Shri S. K. Rai, learned AGA-I for the State-respondents and
perused the records.

The instant bail application seeks enlargement of applicant Vinay Shankar
Lal on bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2015, under Sections 406, 419, 420,
467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pipari, District Sonbhadra, during
the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of
the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the learned Sessions
Judge, Sonebhadra vide order dated 26.2.2026 and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 17.2.2026.

Shri P. C. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel while pressing the bail plea
of the applicant vehemently submits that the applicant is entirely innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior
motives. The FIR giving rise to the case crime number in question was
lodged nominating one Rajesh Kumar Rai with the allegation that the
nominated person is the Director of a Chit Fund Company, namely,
Vaibhav Pariwar India Project Ltd., which has been opened in the house
of Rakesh Maurya. The informant is stated to have invested
Rs.16,02,000/- in his name, Rs.7,00,000/- in his daughter Charu Mishra's
name, Rs.6,50,000/- in the name of Mehta Mishra and Rs.1,00,000/- in
the name of his wife Smt. Manju Mishra in a scheme which was to mature
                                                              BAIL No. 8942 of 2026
                                  2


in one year. The FIR alleges that when the maturity period came, the
informant could not withdraw his money as the company had closed
down. The Managing Director was located and then prosecution was
launched.

It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has
surfaced in the statement of one Abdul Ansari son of Anul Ansari,
Manager of the Chit Fund Company. It is argued that the applicant was
appointed as Director of the Chit Fund Company Vaibhav Pariwar India
Project Ltd., having registered office in South Dhaka Asansol, West
Bengal, India between 18.6.2013 and 18.9.2014. It is also argued that the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India had carried out an
inspection of the company under Section 206 (5) of the Companies Act
and submitted its report dated 24.8.2018 which has been brought on
record as Annexure-7 to the bail application. Learned counsel for the
applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by
the Inspecting Officer which throws light on the complicity of the
applicant in the alleged crime. The findings are being quoted hereunder:-

     "The company and its directors have thus collected deposits from the
     public without following procedure laid down in the Deposit Rules which
     is in excess to the limits laid down by Section 58A of the Companies Act,
     1956 and paid commission much in excess of the permissible limit. Many
     of these investors were small depositors. The company and Shri Rakesh
     Kumar Rai, Mg. Director and other directors namely Smt. Indrakala Rai
     and Shri Manoj Kuma Rai have thus violated the provisions of Section
     58A and 58AA of the Companies Act, 1956 and are liable to be
     prosecuted for the same. Shri Binay Kumar Lall, director of the company
     was posted at the registered office of the company in West Bengal just to
     receive papers (dak) and forward the same to the Head Office at
     Varanasi. Though he has signed the balance sheet foe 2012-13 but it was
     done under duress and he has not received any remuneration as per the
     bank statement. Therefore, it is apparent that he was not involved in the
     management of the company and the offences committed by it."

Shri P. C. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has next
argued that the offence of Section 406 and 420 IPC cannot run together as
                                                              BAIL No. 8942 of 2026
                                 3


has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club Ltd.,
versus State of U.P. reported in 2024 (10) SCC 690. It is further argued
that the applicant has neither committed any forgery or criminal breach of
trust or for that matter any offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467,
468, 504, 506 IPC and his implication in this case crime number is
unwarranted. He is entitled to be enlarged on bail forthwith. It is further
argued that the nominated accused Rajesh Kumar Rai has already been
enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
18.5.2018. The applicant undertakes to cooperate the trial and shall not
misuse the liberty of bail, if released on bail. Hence, bail is prayed for.

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering all above facts and circumstances, inspection carried out by
Ministry of Cooperate Affairs, law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Deli Race Club Ltd., (supra) the nature of accusations, severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence,
reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie, but
without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Vinay Shankar Lal, involved in above
mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a
personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in 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
                                                                                              BAIL No. 8942 of 2026
                                                                      4


                                    will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.



                                                                                        (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
                                    March 31, 2026
                                    Ravi Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad