Allahabad High Court
Chandresh Kumar Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 October, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202779
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11605 of 2023
Applicant :- Chandresh Kumar Gupta And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.86 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Uttar, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the informant is stated to be the partner in M/s Pachauri Distributors Evam M/s Indian Drug House. The applicants are stated to have entered into an agreement with the informant on the ground that he shall get a profit of Rs.3-5 lakhs per month. Later on, the applicants are stated to have closed the said business with the firm of the informant and also did not pay the salary of the employees. Two cheques, worth Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.1,26,240/- dated 04.10.2013 and 09.10.2013 respectively, have been given to the informant, but the same could not be honored. The said registered notice, under the Negotiable Instrument Act, were also deliberately returned without service by the applicants. On 05.01.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., the applicants are stated to have come to the informant and had further asked for Rs.5 lakhs. On refusal by the informant, they are stated to have threatened him and hurled abuses at him. The FIR was instituted by the informant on 07.02.2014 at Police Station Uttar, District Firozabad.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. The matter of civil nature has been converted into criminal one by the informant. There is civil litigation pending between the parties. Learned counsel has further stated that no case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been filed by the informant despite the cheques being dishonored. The applicants are being harassed as they reside far away at District Valsad, Gujarat.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants are ready to cooperate during trial.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that although the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicants, the case of the applicants is covered by the judgments of the Apex Court passed in Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 2021 SC 5125 andLavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, whereby the Apex Court has used the word normally. The case of the applicants does not come within the category of normal. The circumstances regarding the instant case are abnormal. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.4560 of 2023 (Udit Arya vs. State of U.P.).
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that already there is an order of issuing non bailable warrant and the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. dated 31.08.2022 and the same was going on since 23.09.2019.
9. The judgments relied by the counsel for the applicants do not apply to the present case.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicants are deliberately avoiding the trial and he is not cooperating in it since long as the FIR in the instant case was instituted in the year 2014 and nine years have passed since then and also taking into consideration the judgment passed in Lavesh (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
11. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 19.10.2023
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
