Anil Kumar Shah @ Ani Shah vs State Of Up
2025 Latest Caselaw 7326 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Anil Kumar Shah @ Ani Shah vs State Of Up on 28 May, 2025

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92004
 
Order reserved on 22.05.2025
 
                   Order delivered on 28.05.2025
 
Court No. - 64
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25741 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Shah @ Ani Shah
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nishant Mishra,Vikas Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
 

 

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sageer Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Anil Kumar Shah @ Anil Shah, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.206 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 727 of 2023. The said order reads as under:-

"1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anil Kumar Shah@ Ani Saha, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2019, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. lodged on 12.02.2019 by Sunil Kumar Meena s/o Devi Lal Meena resident of Flat NO.-GF1, Bhavya Praide Apartment, S.K.I.T. Engineering College near Jagatpura, Jaipur against Sanjay Bhati, Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karan Pal Singh is that in the first week of October he entered into an agreement with a Bike Taxi Company by depositing Rs. 34 lakhs. The name of the company was Bike Bot powered by Gravit Innovative Promoter Limited, the owner of the said company is Sanjay Bhati and the other directors of the company are Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karan Pal Singh. The company was having its registered office at Plot No.1, Chiti, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, U.P. and the other offices of the company are situated at Dadri and Grand Vanis Mall, Noida. The informant has executed the agreement with Sanjay Bhati on a stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- with the postulation that the company will open franchise by giving informant 51 bikes which would be operated like Ola Bike and Uber in Jaipur and as per the terms of the agreement the salary of 51 drivers will be given by the company and the company shall also provide rent of bike parking @ 200/- per bike. The informant came to know about the company from the Manger of Andhara Bank, Branch Jagat Pura, Jaipur who also informed him that he has also invested in six bikes and on further enquiry the informant came to know that many people of Jaipur who are acquainted to him have also invested in the said company. Each one of them were getting payment per month by the company but after 01-02 months the company stopped the payment. The informant was to get Rs. 6,45,000/- in his bank account of Andhara Bank but he received only Rs. 66,000/- from the company and since the last two months neither he nor anyone has received any money. The company has no bike online booking app. The informant many times visited the company but the officials told him that they only keep bikes for showing while the company earns by making people join the company and he should also pursue people to join the company if he wants to earn. Apart from 51 bikes only 26 bikes have been sent to the informant. The informant has came to know that the owner of the company Sanjay Bhati has appointed another CEO of the company, grabbed money of everyone and has cheated everyone. The company is not providing any bike taxi services rather it is rotating money as chit fund company. The company has promised to pay Rs. 75 lakhs from of investment of Rs. 34 lakhs. The company has done fraud with many people, the bank accounts of the company be seized and his report be lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is argued that the implication of the applicant has surfaced in the matter after two years of lodging of the first information report. It is argued that Deepak Tayal a witness in the matter was interrogated u/s 161 Cr.P.C. who did not state anything about the applicant. Subsequently his statement was again recorded for the second time on 10.08.2021 in which only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and 07 named persons and others. It is argued that the applicant is not involved in the management of the company and is neither a shareholder of the company. It is further argued that the applicant is an accused in one other case lodged in Delhi pertaining to Bike Bot matter. It is argued that the applicant has been booked under the U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities Act (Prevention), 1986 in a very stereo typed manner along with other co-accused persons. Learned counsel has argued that the Memorandum of Understanding was executed between M/s Gravit Innovative Promoter Limited and M/s Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Abet Builtech Pvt. Ltd. which are the companies of the applicant and money was transferred for booking of nine flats by G.I.P.L. It is argued that the said nine flats have been attached by the Enforcement Directorate but the same would go to show that the transactions were not in any manner sham transactions in a clandestine way. It is argued that the said transactions were genuine and were transactions through bank. It is argued that co-accused Sanjay Goel, Adesh Bhati @ Ajeet Bhati, Sunil Kumar Prajapati @ Sunil Prajapati and Rekha Rani have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches including this Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.05.2020, 20.07.2021, 27.01.2022 and 15.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2766 of 2020, 21115 of 2021, 26288 of 2021 with 26884 of 2021 and 56777 of 2022, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-31 to the affidavit. Further co-accused Lalit Kumar has been granted bail by the Apex Court vide order dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1170-1178 of 2022, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 11.01.2023. It is further argued while placing paragraph 122 of the affidavit that the applicant is an old ailing man aged about 65 years. The applicant and is in jail since 12.12.2020.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that on the own showing of the applicant from paragraph 4 to 8 of the supplementary affidavit dated 28.08.2023 the applicant is involved in 05 other cases and 07 cases pertaining to Bike Bot scam. It is argued that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.09.2018 shows the acquisition price of the target company is approximately Rs. 09 lakhs. It is argued that it was further stated that the parties shall enter into separate share purchase agreement for each of the target companies. It is argued that perusal of paragraph 69 of the affidavit in support of the bail application goes to show that the transfer of funds were much earlier to the company of the applicant from the date of lodging of the first information report. It is further argued that there has been siphoning of funds by transferring the funds collected in the scam under the garb of the applicant for purchase of flats. It is argued that attachment of the said properties by the Enforcement Directorate is after their satisfaction of money being laundered and after they have satisfied with the misuse of funds through money trail. It is argued that the said money was transferred to the company of the applicant just to legalize it. It is further argued that the applicant is a beneficiary of money received from investors. The applicant is further involved in signing forged cheques. Learned counsel has argued that G.I.P.L. and its sister companies and Independent TV (earlier known as Reliance Big TV Ltd.) opened 21 bank accounts in different banks and Rs. 29,76,52,09,644.62 were received from approximate 2,46,462 investors. The applicant was instrumental in motivating the investors to invest their money in G.I.P.L. While placing paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it is argued that as per the bank statements obtained by the Investigating Officer the companies of the applicant received Rs. 21,67,00,177/- transferred by G.I.P.L. and its sister companies. It is argued that the applicant is seriously involved in the present matter. He by receiving money in his companies was a direct beneficiary of the money collected by cheating and forgery. It is argued that the bail application thus deserves to be rejected.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the companies of the applicant received money from G.I.P.L. in their account for flats booked by G.I.P.L. The flats have been attached by the Enforcement Directorate which goes to show that money has been laundered and money trail was found to be showing criminality. The applicant was thus the beneficiary of the money collected by G.I.P.L. from investors by committing fraud and cheating on them. The investigation in the matter has concluded and charge-sheet has been submitted in which the implication of the applicant has surfaced. No ground for bail is made out.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

5. Against the said order dated 18.10.2023, the accused-applicant Anil Kumar Shah @ Anil Shah preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14555 of 2023 (Anil Kumar Shah @ Anil Shah Vs. State of U.P.) which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 20.11.2023. The said order reads as under:-

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

6. Subsequently the present second bail application has been filed. The Apex Court passed an order dated 28.4.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary no.13989 of 2025 which was connected with Writ Petition (Crl.) No.170 of 2025 (X) by which the Apex Court had hoped and trusted the High Court that it will give due consideration to the present second bail application which has been pending for some time for expeditious hearing and its disposal. The said order reads as under:-

"SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 13989/2025

There is substantial delay of 270 days in the filing of the present special leave petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. Even on merits, we do not see any good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Recording the aforesaid, both the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the special leave petition are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

W.P.(Crl.) No. 170/2025 (X)

We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is to be noted that the petitioner, Aniel Kumar Saha, has already filed an application for grant of bail, which is pending before the High Court.

It will be open to the petitioner, Aniel Kumar Saha, to press for the expeditious hearing and disposal of the bail application.

We hope and trust that the High Court will give due consideration as the application has been pending for some time.

Recording the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as not entertained.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the charge sheet in the matter has been submitted on 21.12.2022 on which cognizance has been taken by the court concerned on 23.12.2022 but till date charge in the matter has not been framed. It is submitted that there is thus delay in trial which is yet to start. It is submitted while placing supplementary affidavit dated 5.5.2025 that looking to the delay in trial, two co-accused have been granted short term bail by this Court being Vinod vide order dated 4.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2625 of 2021 (Vinod Vs. State of U.P.) and co-accused Vinod Kumar vide order dated 4.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.33586 of 2022 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) for a period of four months. It is submitted that the trial in the matter is not proceeding as the matter has been clubbed by an order of the Apex Court and there are many accused persons and the fact which appears is that one or the other accused persons are on bail and some are confined in different places in the country and thus are not appearing before the trial court and so the trial court is unable to frame charge. Looking to the same, the bail of the applicant be allowed and the applicant be directed to be released on bail. It is further submitted while placing para 108 of the affidavit in support of bail application that apart from the present application, the applicant has been involved in seven other criminal cases. The disclosure of case crime numbers have been done in the said para. Further while placing para 4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 5.5.2025, it is submitted that prior to the present case the applicant has criminal history but subsequently a case under the Gangsters Act has also been lodged against him. The applicant is in jail since 12.12.2020.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. The said order was under challenge before the Apex Court and the Apex Court did not interfere in the same and the said S.L.P was dismissed. It is further submitted that there is no fresh and new ground in the present bail application except the period of detention of the accused which cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail looking to the complicity and nature of the case. The present incident is spread in many states of the country and thus there will be some delay in trial. He vehemently submits that all the cases pertaining to the Bike Bot Scam have been connected together and Case Crime No.206 of 2019 has been made as a leading case vide order passed by the Apex Court and since the present scam is spread throughout the country, there are accused who are involved in other criminal cases and are in jail in other states and thus there appearance before one court at Gautam Buddha Nagar is very difficult and the trial court is thus facing difficulty in securing the presence to frame charge. On a petition by one of the accused Satinder Singh Bhasin, all the cases were clubbed together and were directed to take place at Gautam Buddha Nagar only and thus the presence of all the accused persons is very difficult on a paticular date since many accused are confined in different jails in different district of the country, the present case is spread in many states all over the country. It is further submitted while placing para 111 of the affidavit in support of bail application that apart from the involvement of the applicant in the present case related to Bike Bot Scam in which many FIR's have been lodged in which the applicant is an accused, the applicant is also involved in another case regarding builder buyer agreement executed for a project namely 'AMADEUS' wherein many FIR's have been lodged in Delhi and Noida and the matter is still pending. Thus on the own showing the applicant is involved in another case of cheating and forgery and does not deserve any sympathy. The bail application of the applicant be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 18.10.2023, against the said order a Special Leave to Appeal was preferred before the Apex Court which was rejected by the Apex Court vide order dated 20.11.2023. The only ground as agitated is the period of detention of the accused-applicant. The period of detention of the applicant coupled with the fact that although cognizance has been taken on the charge sheet on 23.12.2022 but charge has not been framed till date and as such there is an effort to argue regarding delay in trial. In so far as the question regarding non-framing of charge is concerned, the trial of the present matter concerns many accused persons. The nature of the case is such which is spread in many states of the country and there are many accused who are confined in jails in other States. Their presence at one point of time for framing of charge is difficult. The same cannot be said to be a negligence of the prosecution. Specific reasons have been spelled out by learned counsel for the State for the trial court being handicapped in framing of the charge. The same thus cannot be taken as a thing against the prosecution. The applicant apart for the present case is also involved in another case of cheating and forgery. In the present case multiple FIR's have been lodged and he is involved in it.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

                                                              (Samit Gopal, J.)

Order Date :- 28.05.2025.

Gaurav Kuls