Allahabad High Court
Ajay Agarwal vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84368
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4424 of 2024
Applicant :- Ajay Agarwal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankur Sharma,G.A.,Nidhi A. Sharma
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.17 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 352, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have entered into an agreement with the informant, who happens to be the person with same name except the word 'Kumar' is added in between the forename and surname. The applicant is stated to have forged the signatures and the stamp paper in the name of the firm of the informant 'Ajay Constructions' and thereby is stated to have drafted an Memorandum of Understanding, whereby it was agreed upon between the parties that now onwords the firm of the applicant shall be using the credentials of the firm so that the construction contracts may be awarded to the firm of the applicant.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
(Arguments on behalf of Applicant)
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant and the informant were the partners in the said firm 'Ajay Constructions' and subsequently the informant retired from the said firm and had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the applicant on a stamp paper and had given the rights to the applicant to use all the credentials of the firm of the informant.
6. The contracts, granted to the firm of the applicant, have been cancelled by the Indian Railways on technical grounds only and the applicant had challenged it by filing a Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.47 of 2023 before this Court, which is still pending.
7. The Investigating Officer has filed final report (charge-sheet) against the applicant without summoning the notary register or sending the signatures on the stamp paper and the signatures of the informant for forensic analysis. Even the stamp vendor has stated that he had given the said stamp paper, which is genuine, although he had stated the fact that the register mentions the word PACL. In total nine cases have been instituted by the informant herein against the applicant and the proceedings of all those cases have been stayed. The matter of civil in nature has been converted into criminal one by the informant, as such the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
8. It is further argued that the applicant was not arrested during the investigation and he has cooperated with it, thus he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail as there is no need of custodial interrogation.
9. Reliance has been placed on paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299, which reads hereinasunder:
"On the strength of the aforesaid allegations, which are certainly serious in nature, the prayer of the appellants for anticipatory bail is opposed vehemently by the learned Additional Solicitor General. But in our considered view there are at least three factors which tilt the balance in favour of the appellants herein. They are:?
(i) Admittedly, the CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report). Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention that at this stage the custody of the appellants may be required;
(ii) In the reply/counter filed before the High Court, the CBI had taken a categorical stand that the Court had merely issued summons and not warrant for the appearance of the accused. In the case of Shri Deepak Gupta, CBI had taken a stand before the Special Court that "the presence of the accused is not required for the investigation but it is certainly required for trial" and that therefore he needs to be present. Therefore, all that the CBI wanted was the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial. In such circumstances, to oppose the anticipatory bail request at this stage may not be proper; and
(iii) All transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, seem to have taken place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 and all are borne out by records. When the primary focus is on documentary evidence, we fail to understand as to why the appellants should now be arrested."
10. Reliance has also been placed on paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in R. Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2023) 2 SCC 195, which reads hereinasunder:
"As stated earlier, the police could be said to have made a mockery of the entire investigation. When it is the specific case of the original complainant that at no point of time he had executed the disputed sale deed dated 29-12-2010 and his signature on the disputed sale deed has been forged, then the first thing the police should have done was to obtain the specimen handwritings of the complainant so as to be compared with the disputed signature on the sale deed through a handwriting expert. We are informed that as on date there is no report of the handwritings expert in regard to the genuineness of the signature of the complainant on the disputed sale deed."
Arguments on behalf of Informant/State)
11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and has stated at Bar that the applicant has committed forgery on three grounds: (i) he had procured fake stamp. (ii) he had forged the signatures of the informant. (iii) that the notarization of the said stamp is also fake.
12. The stamp vendor has provided information under RTI Act, whereby he has categorically stated that he had sold the said stamp paper to PACL Company only and the said fact has been corroborated by the report of A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), Bareilly on 4.5.2023. The matter was reported to the Vigilance Cell of the Railway Department and the Railway Department has also found the said anomalies in the said documents and thereby cancelled the contracts granted to the firm of the applicant and further action is warranted by the department, although they are yet to institute any FIR in the matter.
13. The applicant had agitated the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and he has not been granted any protection whatsoever. The applicant was not arrested pursuant to the order of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2035 of 2023 vide order dated 16.02.2023, he has not come with clean hands as he has criminal antecedents also.
CONCLUSION:
14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant has criminal antecedents of nine cases as admitted by him, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C.
15. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
16. 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 :- 10.5.2024
Ravi Kant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
