# Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1049
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 6712 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-maurya-amit-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-51768
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 386, 389, 504 & 506 - As per FIR,
informant, Vice President of Purvanchal
Truck Owners Association, pursued action
against
A.R.T.O.,
leading
to
his
incarceration - Applicant allegedly offered
bribe of ₹1 crore and demanded ₹1 lakh
monthly
to
restrain
informant
from
pursuing case against A.R.T.O, threatening
to defame him through media - He is
further accused of issuing threats, using
abusive language, and posting hate and
derogatory content against public and
religious figures on social media - In
defence, counsel for applicant contends
that allegations are false and motivated
by malice - It is submitted that applicant
has no connection with cases against
A.R.T.O or any criminal activity - FIR is
alleged to be consequence of applicant's
publication
exposing
corruption
in
transport department - Further asserted
that

applicant
neither
sent
any
threatening
messages
nor
visited
informant's
residence
-
Counsel
for
informant contends that applicant falsely
poses as press reporter/editor to conceal
illegal activities, lacks requisite publishing
licenses, and questions authenticity of his
publications
-
Considering
gravity
of
allegations,
including
misuse
of
publication for extortion, abusive remarks
against public figures, and disregard for
religious sentiments, no merit is found in
granting bail - Application rejected. (Para
3, 4, 5, 32)

Application rejected. (E-13)

## Text

4 All. Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1049

19. इस आदेि की एक प्रधत वििेष
न्यायािीि (भ्रष्टाचार धनिारण अधिधनयम),
सी०बी०आई०, कोर्ज नं०.- 03, िखनऊ को भेजी
जाय।
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1049
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 6712 of 2024

Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms. Mahima Maurya Kushwaha, Sri Mukesh
Kumar Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, G.A., Sri Harish
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ishwar Chandra Pandey,
Sri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, Sri Manoj Kumar
Singh, Sri Siddharth Chaudhary, Sri Sujan Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 386, 389, 504 & 506 - As per FIR,
informant, Vice President of Purvanchal
Truck Owners Association, pursued action
against
A.R.T.O.,
leading
to
his
incarceration - Applicant allegedly offered
bribe of ₹1 crore and demanded ₹1 lakh
monthly
to
restrain
informant
from
pursuing case against A.R.T.O, threatening
to defame him through media - He is
further accused of issuing threats, using
abusive language, and posting hate and
derogatory content against public and
religious figures on social media - In
defence, counsel for applicant contends
that allegations are false and motivated
by malice - It is submitted that applicant
has no connection with cases against
A.R.T.O or any criminal activity - FIR is
alleged to be consequence of applicant's
publication
exposing
corruption
in
transport department - Further asserted
that

applicant
neither
sent
any
threatening
messages
nor
visited
informant's
residence
-
Counsel
for
informant contends that applicant falsely
poses as press reporter/editor to conceal
illegal activities, lacks requisite publishing
licenses, and questions authenticity of his
publications
-
Considering
gravity
of
allegations,
including
misuse
of
publication for extortion, abusive remarks
against public figures, and disregard for
religious sentiments, no merit is found in
granting bail - Application rejected. (Para
3, 4, 5, 32)

Application rejected. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J)

1. Heard Ms. Mahima Maurya
Kushwaha,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant, Mr. Desh Ratan Chaudhary,
learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Amit
Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has
been filed on behalf of the applicant, Amit
Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime
No.0259 of 2023, under sections 386, 389,
504, 506 IPC, Police Station ? Lalpur,
District?Varuna
(Commissionerate
Varanasi), during pendency of trial.

3. As per the allegations in the
FIR, the informant, serving as the Vice
President of the Purvanchal Truck Owners
Association, stands as the prime witness
and key individual in the FIR lodged
against R.S. Yadav, the A.R.T.O. of
Chandauli. It is alleged that the informant
was instrumental in pursuing the case
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against R.S. Yadav on behalf of the
government, leading to Yadav's detention in
jail for the past three years. Additionally,
the informant was actively involved in
pursuing
cases
seen
by
the AntiCorruption Court. However, the applicant
allegedly coerced the informant into
refraining from pursuing the case against
R.S. Yadav, offering a bribe of one crore
rupees.
Furthermore,
the
applicant
demanded monthly payments of one lakh
rupees from the informant, threatening to
tarnish his reputation by publishing
damaging articles in newspapers if his
demands were not fulfilled. It is also
alleged that the applicant resorted to
sending
threatening
messages
and
engaging in verbal abuse towards the
informant. Moreover, the applicant is
accused
of
utilizing
social
media
platforms to propagate hate speech
against public figures, including Prime
Minister Narendra Modi and Chief
Minister Yogi Adityanath, while also
making
derogatory
remarks
against
religious figures.

4. In defense, learned counsel for
the applicant contends that the allegations
against the applicant are baseless and
motivated by ulterior motives. They
further contend that the applicant has no
involvement in the cases against R.S.
Yadav and is not associated with any
criminal
activities.
Moreover,
they
highlight a publication made by the
applicant regarding corrupt practices
within
the
transport
department,
suggesting that this may have provoked
the present FIR. The defense asserts that
the applicant has never sent threatening
messages to the informant nor visited his
residence.
They
also
emphasize
the
applicant's good family background and
lack of criminal antecedents. Additionally,
they assure the court that if granted bail, the
applicant will cooperate fully with the trial
proceedings and will not abscond or tamper
with witnesses.

5. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the informant asserts that the
applicant falsely presents himself as a press
reporter/editor
to
conceal
his
illegal
activities. They argue that the applicant has
not obtained the necessary licenses or
permissions for publishing news articles,
and they question the authenticity of the
publications
made
by
the
applicant.
Furthermore, they claim that the applicant
has a history of criminal behaviour, as
detailed in the counter affidavit. The
counsel alleges that the applicant has used
social media platforms to propagate hate
speech and has made derogatory remarks
against public figures and religious figures.
They also raise concerns regarding the
applicant's use of multiple Aadhar cards for
identity purposes.

6. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

7. Firstly, it is imperative to
address the principle that if someone is
engaged
in
corrupt
practices,
the
appropriate course of action is to bring
forth information to the public domain,
allowing
for
transparency
and
accountability to prevail. It is the duty of
journalists and publishers to disseminate
factual
information
to
the
public,
empowering them to make informed
decisions.
However,
it
is
entirely
unacceptable for publishers to exploit their
platform for personal gain, resorting to
coercive
tactics
under
the guise
of
publication.
The
act
of
leveraging
publication as a tool for coercion not only
undermines the integrity of journalism but
4 All. Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1051
also erodes public trust in the media, which
plays
a
pivotal
role
in
upholding
democratic values.

8. It is crucial to underscore the
fundamental principle that in the event of
someone being involved in corrupt
activities, the proper course of action
entails bringing this information to light
in the public domain. This serves to
uphold transparency and accountability
within society, essential pillars of a
functioning democracy. It is the solemn
duty of journalists and publishers to
disseminate
factual
and
accurate
information
to
the
public,
thereby
empowering
individuals
to
make
informed
decisions
regarding
their
governance and societal matters.

9.

However,
it
is
utterly
reprehensible for publishers to misuse their
platform for personal gain, resorting to
coercive tactics disguised as legitimate
publication endeavours. Exploiting one's
position in the media landscape to extract
benefits or coerce individuals through
threats tarnishes the integrity of journalism.
Such actions not only betray the trust
bestowed upon the media by the public but
also undermine the very essence of
democratic principles.

10. When publishers resort to
leveraging their platforms as tools for
extortion, they not only betray the trust of
their audience but also jeopardize the
foundational values of journalism, which
include
impartiality,
integrity,
and
commitment to the truth. By engaging in
such unethical practices, they erode
public confidence in the media, which
serves
as
a
crucial
watchdog
in
safeguarding
democratic
norms
and
institutions.
11. In essence, the misuse of
publication for personal gain not only
corrodes the credibility of journalism but
also undermines the democratic fabric of
society. The media's role as a guardian of
truth and accountability is essential in
ensuring
the
health
and
vitality
of
democracy. Therefore, it is imperative that
publishers adhere to ethical standards and
refrain from exploiting their platform for
illicit purposes, thereby upholding the
integrity of journalism and preserving
public trust in the media as a cornerstone of
democratic governance.

12. Secondly, the use of personal
remarks and abusive language against any
individual, particularly public figures such
as the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, is
reprehensible
and
antithetical
to
the
principles
of
civil
discourse.
In
a
democratic society, dissent and criticism
are
essential
components
of
robust
governance, but they must be expressed in
a manner that upholds dignity and respect
for all individuals. Resorting to derogatory
language and personal attacks serves no
constructive purpose and only serves to
inflame tensions and undermine the fabric
of civil society.

13.

Within
the
context
of
democratic
governance,
dissent
and
criticism play pivotal roles as mechanisms
for accountability and progress. Citizens
have the right to express their grievances
and
concerns
regarding
governmental
actions or policies, fostering a culture of
transparency
and
public
engagement.
However, it is essential to underscore that
the exercise of this right must be conducted
with a sense of responsibility and decorum.
Respect for the dignity of individuals,
regardless of their position or status, is
paramount in upholding the integrity of
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
civil discourse. Personal attacks and the use
of
derogatory
language
serve
no
constructive
purpose
in
advancing
meaningful dialogue or effecting positive
change. Instead, they diminish the quality
of public discourse, sow discord, and erode
public trust in democratic institutions.

14. In a democracy, the robust
exchange of ideas and perspectives is
fundamental to the process of governance.
Dissent serves as a catalyst for critical
reflection and course correction, prompting
policymakers to reconsider decisions in
light of public feedback. However, when
dissent devolves into ad hominem attacks
and character assassination, it detracts from
the substantive issues at hand and impedes
the pursuit of common goals for the
betterment of society.

15. Moreover, resorting to abusive
language and personal remarks not only
undermines the dignity of the individuals
targeted but also sets a harmful precedent
for future discourse. It fosters a culture of
divisiveness and hostility, where civil
dialogue becomes increasingly elusive, and
the exchange of ideas gives way to vitriol
and animosity. Such behaviour not only
undermines the fabric of civil society but
also hampers the functioning of democratic
institutions by diverting attention from
substantive issues to petty squabbles and
personal vendettas.

16. Thirdly, it is crucial to draw a
clear distinction between legitimate dissent
with the government and constructive
criticism, and the propagation of abusive
language and hatred. In a democracy,
citizens have the right to express dissent
and engage in constructive criticism of
government policies and actions. However,
this must be done within the bounds of
civility
and
respect
for
democratic
institutions. Resorting to inflammatory
language and spreading hatred only serves
to
sow
discord
and
undermine
the
foundations of democracy.

17. In discussing the imperative of
distinguishing between legitimate dissent
and abusive language or hatred, we must
underscore the fundamental principles that
underpin democratic discourse. In any
democratic society, the ability to voice
dissent and engage in constructive criticism
of governmental decisions is not only a
right
but
a
cornerstone
of
civic
engagement. It is through such dissent that
citizens express their concerns, advocate
for change, and hold those in power
accountable. This
process
fosters
an
environment
of
transparency
and
accountability, essential for the functioning
of a healthy democracy.

18. However, this right to dissent
comes with a responsibility to exercise it in
a manner consistent with the norms of civil
discourse. Constructive criticism entails
thoughtful analysis, reasoned arguments,
and a commitment to engaging with
differing viewpoints respectfully. It serves
as a catalyst for meaningful dialogue and
positive change, encouraging policymakers
to consider alternative perspectives and
refine their decisions in the best interests of
society as a whole.

19. On the other hand, the
propagation of abusive language and hatred
represents a stark departure from the
principles of democratic discourse. When
dissent descends into vitriol and personal
attacks,
it
ceases
to
contribute
constructively to public discourse and
instead fosters division and animosity.
Inflammatory rhetoric not only undermines
4 All. Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1053
the credibility of the individual expressing
it but also erodes trust in the democratic
process itself. It perpetuates polarization,
stifles meaningful dialogue, and impedes
progress towards common goals.

20. Moreover, the spread of hatred
and incendiary language poses a grave
threat to social cohesion and undermines
the foundational values of tolerance and
respect for diversity. In a pluralistic society,
where individuals hold diverse beliefs and
identities, fostering an environment of
mutual understanding and acceptance is
paramount.

21. Therefore, it is incumbent upon
all
members
of
society,
including
journalists, activists, and public officials, to
uphold the principles of civil discourse and
reject the proliferation of abusive language
and hatred. While robust debate and
disagreement are inherent to democracy,
they must be conducted in a manner that
respects the dignity and rights of all
individuals. By promoting a culture of
civility and respect, we can safeguard the
integrity of democratic institutions and
advance the collective well-being of
society.

22. Fourthly, it is essential to
acknowledge and uphold the secular
principles upon which our nation is
founded.
Religious
sentiments
hold
immense significance for millions of
citizens, and any act that seeks to denigrate
or insult these sentiments is not only
morally reprehensible but also a violation
of the fundamental rights enshrined in our
Constitution. Publishers and journalists
must exercise their power responsibly,
refraining from making baseless statements
or passing derogatory remarks on religious
figures or practices. Such actions not only
constitute a misuse of power but also pose
a threat to the very fabric of our secular
democracy.

23. Secularism stands as a
cornerstone of our democratic ethos,
emphasizing the equal treatment of all
religions and the separation of religion
from the affairs of the state. This principle
not only ensures religious freedom and
pluralism but also fosters a society where
individuals
from
diverse
religious
backgrounds can coexist harmoniously.

24. Religious sentiments hold
profound significance for millions of
citizens, shaping their beliefs, practices,
and cultural identities. In acknowledging
the importance of these sentiments, it
becomes evident that any act aimed at
denigrating or insulting them constitutes a
grave affront to the principles of tolerance
and respect. Such actions not only
undermine the sanctity of religious beliefs
but also violate the fundamental rights
enshrined in our Constitution, which
guarantee the freedom of religion and
expression for all individuals.

25. Publishers and journalists, as
purveyors of information and opinion,
wield significant influence in shaping
public discourse and perceptions. It is
therefore incumbent upon them to exercise
their power responsibly and ethically.
Making baseless statements or passing
derogatory remarks on religious figures or
practices not only constitutes a misuse of
their power but also poses a direct threat to
the fabric of our secular democracy.

26. In a pluralistic society like
ours, characterized by its rich tapestry of
religious
diversity,
fostering
an
environment
of
mutual
respect
and
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
understanding is paramount. Publishers and
journalists must be vigilant in their
adherence to ethical standards, ensuring
that their reporting and commentary do
not inflame religious tensions or incite
hatred.

27. Upholding secular principles
is not merely a legal or constitutional
obligation
but
a
moral
imperative
essential for the preservation of our
democratic
values.
Publishers
and
journalists play a crucial role in this
endeavour, and it is incumbent upon them
to exercise their power responsibly,
refrain
from
denigrating
religious
sentiments, and uphold the principles of
tolerance, respect, and equality for all. By
doing so, they contribute to the strength
and resilience of our secular democracy,
ensuring that it remains a beacon of hope
and freedom for generations to come.

28. Fifthly, it is apparent from
the allegations presented in this case that
the individual in question has egregiously
misused
publication
as
a
tool
for
coercion, all while hiding behind the
facade of being a journalist. Instead of
fulfilling the noble duty of providing
accurate and unbiased information to the
public, this individual has opted to
exploit their position for personal gain.
By leveraging their platform to coerce
individuals
through
threats
and
intimidation, they have not only betrayed
the trust of their audience but also
violated the ethical standards expected of
journalists.

29. The misuse of publication for
coercive purposes represents a severe abuse
of power and a blatant disregard for the
principles of journalistic integrity. Rather
than serving as a beacon of truth and
accountability, the individual in question
has
distorted
the
very
essence
of
journalism, using it as a means to further
their
own
selfish
interests.
Such
reprehensible conduct not only undermines
the credibility of the media but also erodes
public trust in the institution as a whole.

30. Moreover, the act of using
publication as a tool for coercion poses a
significant threat to the integrity of
democratic values. In a democracy, the
media plays a pivotal role in fostering
informed public discourse and holding
power to account. When journalists abuse
their authority for coercive purposes, they
not only undermine the principles of
transparency and accountability but also
corrode the foundation of trust upon which
democratic governance relies.

31. In light of these egregious
allegations, it is clear that the individual in
question has failed to uphold the ethical
standards expected of journalists. Instead of
serving the public interest, they have
chosen to prioritize their own personal gain
at the expense of journalistic integrity and
democratic values. Therefore, considering
the gravity of these allegations, there is no
justification for granting bail to an
individual who has so blatantly abused
their position of trust and influence.

32. In conclusion, considering the
gravity of the allegations against the
applicant,
including
the
misuse
of
publication for extortion, propagation of
abusive language against public figures,
and disregard for religious sentiments, I
find no merit in granting bail. The
principles of justice and integrity demand
that individuals who abuse their position
and influence for personal gain be held
accountable for their actions.
4 All. Satish Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1055
33.

Accordingly,
the
bail
application stands rejected.

34. It is clarified that the
observations, if any, made in this order are
strictly confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1055
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No.
12465 of 2023
(Under Section 438 Cr.P.C.)

Satish Chandra Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Gopal Misra, Sri Anoop Trivedi (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri R.P.S. Chauhan

Criminal Law - Companies Act, 2013 -
Sections 439 (2), 436 (1)(a) & (d)
Proviso to Section 212(6) & 212 (14) -
Companies Act, 1956 - Section 621(1) -
Anticipatory
bail
-
Maintainability
-
Record reveals that criminal complaint
under Companies Act was filed against
applicant
&
ors.,
wherein
applicant,
arrayed as accused no. 54, being exdirector of foreign entity, is alleged to
have connived with other entities in
conducting
fraudulent
merchanting
trade, causing loss of crores of rupees to
bank, thereby attracting liability u/s 447
of Act, 2013 - Learned counsel for Union
of India raised preliminary objection that
applicant, having directly approached
High Court u/s 438 Cr.P.C. without first
moving court concerned, renders present
anticipatory
bail
application
not
maintainable - As per Five-Judge Full
Bench decision in Anktit Bharti (infra),
application for pre-arrest bail can be
entertained by High Court directly only in
exceptional circumstances, and not as
matter
of
routine,
unless
special
circumstances are shown to exist -
Applicant has not disclosed any special
circumstance for directly approaching
High Court u/s 438 Cr.P.C. without first
moving
court
concerned
-
In
supplementary affidavit, applicant merely
asserted that Section 438 Cr.P.C. does
not bar filing anticipatory bail directly
before the High Court - However, such
assertion does not constitute special
circumstance
warranting
direct
entertainment of instant application -
Admittedly,
applicant
is
resident
of
London (U.K.) and not residing in India -
Investigation
stands
concluded,
and
applicant has been summoned along with
others - No warrants issued against him
till date - Hence, question arises whether
any reasonable apprehension of arrest
still exists - Therefore, it appears that no
apprehension of arrest exists in respect
of applicant - Application rejected. (Para
22, 23, 26, 27, 33, 35)

Application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ankit Bharti & ors. Vs St. of U.P & anr. 2020
(3) ADJ 575

2. Vinod Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2019 (12)
ADJ 495

3. Vijay Babu Vs St. of Kerala & ors. 2022 SCC
OnLine Ker 3158

4. Mahdoom Bava Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299

5. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & ors. Vs St. of Punj.
(1980) 2 SCC 565, (Para 35)

6. Sushila Agarwal & ors. Vs St. of NCT Delhi &
anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1