Allahabad High Court
Ajay Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 19 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10726
Court No. - 18
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 89 of 2025
Applicant :- Ajay Gupta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Salil Kumar Srivastava,Rahul Srivastava,Varun Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aarohi Bhalla,Kartikeya Yadav,Kumar Nilesh,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-By means of this Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant is seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 460 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow after submission of charge charge-sheet.
2-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate-Ist for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
3-Filtering out unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that informant/complainant Amit Kumar Singh is running two petrol pumps in the names and styles of Sri Filling Station situated at Transport Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow and Gomti Nagar, Husariya Crossing, Lucknow, respectively. The applicant Ajay Gupta was engaged as Part-time Typist / Data Entry Operator to work for two days in a week on both the aforesaid filling stations of the complainant for the purpose of feeding data in respect of preparation of balance-sheet and maintaining ledger for the purpose of filing income tax return to be finalized by the chartered accountant of the complainant and he was paid Rs. 12,500/- per month towards his salary. The dispute in this case arose with the allegation of making wrong entries in the ledger book and it is the case of the prosecution inter alia that accused persons of this case adopting different modus operandi, taking the benefit of wrong entry, embezzled huge amount of the complainant. On 16.03.2022, first information report was lodged by opposite party no. 2 at Case Crime No. 133 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC after five years against Lal Bahadur Yadav, Manoj Yadav and present applicant Ajay Gupta regarding the entries made by the applicant between 22.01.2017 to 04.11.2018. Thereafter on 06.07.2022 another first information report was lodged by opposite party no. 2 registered at Case Crime No. 460 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471,120 B and 506 IPC after four years against same accused persons namely Lal Bahadur Yadav, Manoj Yadav and present applicant Ajay Gupta at police station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow regarding the entries made by the applicant between 14.04.2018 to 04.11.2018 and on 15.02.2019.
4-Vide order of this Court dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1856 of 2022, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail in the above Case Crime No. 460 of 2022 during investigation till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
5-The said order dated 09.11.2022 of this Court was challenged by the complainant by means of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1649 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein on 09.08.2024, following order was passed :-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.1 though served has failed to enter his appearance. It is pointed out that although directions was issued for his surrender, vide High Court's Order dated 12.5.2022, he has failed to surrender.
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that notice was duly served on the accused-respondent No.1 through the state machinery.
Considering the above, let non-bailable warrant for arrest for sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for accused-respondent no.1 namely Ajay Gupta, S/o late Kamal Kishore Gupta, who was accused in the FIR Nos.133 of 2022 and 460 of 2022, be issued.
Warrant be executed through the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lucknow. He will ensure that the accused-respondent no.1 arrested and produced before the nearest Magistrate. With appropriate bail bond, the magistrate shall ensure the appearance of accused-respondent no.1 before this Court on the next date i.e. 9.9.2024. The Magistrate may however release the accused-respondent from custody after obtaining bond.
Copy of this Order be furnished to the Standing counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The matter be listed on 9.9.2024."
6-Thereafter, the applicant was taken into custody on 25.08.2024 in Case Crime Nos. 460 of 2022 and 133 of 2022 and in the light of directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the order dated 09.08.2024, the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 28.08.2024 of the Magistrate concerned subject to condition that he shall ensure his physical presence before the Hon'ble Apex Court in person on 09.09.2024. Thereafter applicant appeared before the Hon,ble Apex Court and matter was heard by the Hon?ble Apex Court on 30.09.2024 and it appears that during the course of arguments, it was not informed on behalf of the State that investigation of this case has been concluded on 12.07.2024, therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 directed the applicant to make himself available before the Investigating Officer on 07.10.2024 at 11:00 A.M. In compliance of the said order, when the applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer on 07.10.2024, his attendance was not accepted by the Investigating Officer on the ground that after completing the investigation of this case, charge-sheet dated 12.07.2024 was already forwarded by him to the superior officer. Then applicant having left with no option sent his complaint to Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Lucknow through registered post on 08.10.2024. On the next date, the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1649 of 2023 vide order dated 03.12.2024 observing that statement of accused has already been recorded on 26.05.2023, process of collection of the evidence is concluded and charge-sheet dated 12.07.2024 in the matter has been forwarded to the Court, therefore, this matter where anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent (applicant in the present case) by the High Court need not be kept pending any longer.
7-Thereafter, applicant moved an application dated 21.10.2024 before the learned Magistrate for extension of anticipatory bail order dated 09.11.2022, which was rejected by the Magistrate concerned vide order dated 29.10.2024 on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to extend the anticipatory bail order dated 09.11.2022 granted by the High Court. The applicant being aggrieved preferred Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2548 of 2024 seeking extension of anticipatory bail order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application no. 1856 of 2022. but later on, on 20.01.2025, when said case was taken up, it was argued on behalf of the applicant that on account of wrong advise, the anticipatory bail application no. 2548 of 2024 was filed for extension of order dated 09.11.2022 whereas the said anticipatory bail application was already disposed of, hence the same was not pressed and withdrawn and vide order dated 20.01.2025 liberty was granted to the applicant to file fresh anticipatory bail application. In the aforesaid background of the facts, the applicant has preferred the instant anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail after submission of charge-sheet/police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
8-It argued by learned counsel for the applicant that although the applicant was granted regular bail vide order dated 28.08.2024 but the same is being interpreted the state and complainant as interim bail for the purpose of ensuring presence of the applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court. He further submits that after granting anticipatory bail to the applicant on 09.11.2022,his statement has been recorded during investigation on 26.05.2023. Much emphasis has been given by contending on 30.09.2024 during the course of argument before the Hon?ble Apex Court, state did not disclose the fact the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet dated 12.07.2024 has been forwarded to the Court through the officer concerned. It is also pointed out that in fact charge-sheet dated 12.07.2024 was submitted in the Court on 19.09.2024,on which concerned Court took cognizance on 19.09.2024. Since anticipatory bail order dated 09.11.2022 granted to the applicant by this Court during investigation has not been cancelled by the Hon?ble Apex Court and now there is no need of interrogation of the applicant, therefore in the light of judgment of the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal and another Vs. State of Delhi and others (2020) 5 SCC 1, after submission of charge-sheet, applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial subject to any conditions imposed by this Court. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and will co-operate with the trial.
9-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate-Ist for the State of U.P. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that even after disposing of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1649 of 2023, the applicant is regularly appearing through his counsel before the trial Court and there is no apprehension of his arrest, therefore, the relief as sought for by means of this anticipatory bail application cannot be granted to him. Since applicant was granted bail on 28.08.2024 for short period, therefore he should file regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
10-In order to ascertain the present status of the applicant, as to whether he was granted regular bail by order dated 28.08.2024 of the learned Magistrate or short bail to ensure his presence before the Hon?ble Apex Court, this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 called for a report from the concerned Magistrate with regard to nature of bail order dated 28.08.2024 granted to the applicant, who, in turn submitted its report dated 13.02.2025 mentioning inter alia that vide order dated 28.08.2024, the accused-applicant Ajay Kumar Gupta was granted bail for the purpose of his appearance before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
11-In view of the above, it is clear that the applicant is not on regular bail. Charge-sheet has been submitted and no further interrogation of the applicant is required. Applicant has not misused the liberty of bail short term bail order dated 28.08.2024, hence no useful purpose would be served in sending the applicant to jail. The alleged offence is not heinous in nature. It is also not in dispute that on 30.09.2024 during the course of argument before the Hon?ble Apex Court, state did not disclose the fact the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet dated 12.07.2024 has been forwarded to the Court. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the applicant, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of accusation, there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice as well and there is no likelihood of tampering any prosecution witnesses, therefore, this Court feels that in the light of judgment of the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal (supra) the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail during trial.
12-In the event of arrest of the applicant Ajay Gupta involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below with the following conditions :-
(i)That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court on each dates unless inevitable.
(ii) That 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 tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the concerned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant after recording reasons.
13-It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application only and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record.
14-With the aforesaid observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2025
Shubham/Mohd. Sharif
