# G.S. Raghav v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1173
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-13
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 48 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/g-s-raghav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51537
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 406, 409 & 120B - Applicant
sought cancellation of bail granted to opposite
party no.2 (Aditya Goel) on 30.09.2019 in Case
Crime No. 1889 of 2018 for embezzlement of
Rs.2,45,30,623 through a company, alleging
violation of bail conditions. Court held: (1)
Opposite party no.2 violated bail condition of
attending and cooperating in trial by filing 14
personal
exemption
applications
(from
30.01.2023
to
16.01.2024),
allowed
mechanically by trial court without reasoned
orders, obstructing trial progress. (2) Trial court
failed to enforce bail conditions, undermining
justice
by
issuing
template
orders
for
exemptions. (3) Serious allegations of fund
siphoning (Rs.1,30,00,000 to personal account)
and involvement in multiple shell companies not
adequately addressed by trial court. (4) Bail
cancellation not ordered, but trial court directed
to ensure accused presence, avoid routine
exemptions, and expedite trial while strictly
enforcing bail conditions (Dolat Ram Vs St. of
Har., (1995) 1 SCC 349; Deepak Yadav Vs St. of
U.P., 2022 SCC Online SC 672). Application
disposed of with liberty to applicant to seek
redressal before trial court, which must decide
within 60 days. Judgment to be circulated to all
District Judges and Judicial Training Institute.
(Paras 11-20)

Application Disposed of.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. G.S. Raghav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1173
under MSMED Act, NHAI Act,
etc.) and not by the High Court or Supreme
Court, the Court as defined under Section
2(1)(e) of the Act can exercise the powers
under Section 29A of the Act, including the
power of substitution contained in Section
29A(6) of the Act ?

58. Accordingly, the Registry of this
Court is directed to place this matter before
the
Hon'ble
the
Chief
Justice
for
constitution of a larger bench as per the
Allahabad High Court Rules.

59. This Court acknowledges the
diligence
and
eloquence
of
counsel
appearing for parties in ARBT 2 of 2022
and ARBT 5 of 2023 in rendering
assistance to this Court on the Question of
Law as was put forward by this Court
during the course of arguments. I would
also like to put on record my appreciation
for the painstaking research and assistance
in drafting by my legal intern Mr. Jaspreet
Singh.

60. In light of the aforesaid
discussion, ARBT 2 of 2022 and ARBT 5
of 2023 are adjourned sine die till the larger
bench returns its decision on the questions
of law.

61. Urgent photostat-certified copies
of this order, if applied for, should be
readily made available to the parties upon
compliance with requisite formalities.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1173
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 48 of
2020

G.S. Raghav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rahul Chaudhary

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Pratik Chandra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 406, 409 & 120B - Applicant
sought cancellation of bail granted to opposite
party no.2 (Aditya Goel) on 30.09.2019 in Case
Crime No. 1889 of 2018 for embezzlement of
Rs.2,45,30,623 through a company, alleging
violation of bail conditions. Court held: (1)
Opposite party no.2 violated bail condition of
attending and cooperating in trial by filing 14
personal
exemption
applications
(from
30.01.2023
to
16.01.2024),
allowed
mechanically by trial court without reasoned
orders, obstructing trial progress. (2) Trial court
failed to enforce bail conditions, undermining
justice
by
issuing
template
orders
for
exemptions. (3) Serious allegations of fund
siphoning (Rs.1,30,00,000 to personal account)
and involvement in multiple shell companies not
adequately addressed by trial court. (4) Bail
cancellation not ordered, but trial court directed
to ensure accused presence, avoid routine
exemptions, and expedite trial while strictly
enforcing bail conditions (Dolat Ram Vs St. of
Har., (1995) 1 SCC 349; Deepak Yadav Vs St. of
U.P., 2022 SCC Online SC 672). Application
disposed of with liberty to applicant to seek
redressal before trial court, which must decide
within 60 days. Judgment to be circulated to all
District Judges and Judicial Training Institute.
(Paras 11-20)

Application Disposed of.

Case Law Cited:

1. Dolat Ram Vs St. of Har., (1995) 1 SCC 349
(Para 11)

2. Deepak Yadav Vs St. of U.P., 2022 SCC
Online SC 672 (Para 11)

3. St. of Guj. Vs Jaswantlal Nathhalal, (not
directly relevant, cited by opposite party) (Para
6)
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Aneeta Hada Vs Godfather Travels & Tours,
(2012) 5 SCC 661 (not directly relevant, cited by
opposite party) (Para 6)

5. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao, (1988) 1 SCC 692 (not directly
relevant, cited by opposite party) (Para 6)

6. Dalip Kaur & Ors Vs Jagnar Singh, (2009) 14
SCC 696 (not directly relevant, cited by opposite
party) (Para 6)

7. St. of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8
SCC 21 (not directly relevant, cited by opposite
party) (Para 6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rahul Chaudhary,
learned counsel for the applicant/informant,
learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent,
and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been
preferred by the applicant/informant- G.S.
Raghav, seeking cancellation of bail of the
accused/opposite party no.2- Aditya Goel,
in Case Crime No.1889 of 2018, under
sections 420, 406, 409 and 120B IPC,
Police
Station
Kavi
Nagar,
District
Ghaziabad, who was enlarged on bail by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.40534 of 2019,
titled Aditya Goel v. State of U.P.

3. Succinctly, the prosecution case is
that the accused/opposite party no.2 is
associated with a company facing serious
allegations of embezzling funds amounting
to Rs.2,45,30,623/-. The gist of the
accusation
is
that
Earth
Iconic
Infrastructure Limited is a wholly owned
subsidiary company of Earth Infrastructure
Limited, where the father and other
relatives of opposite party no.2 (the
accused) serve as Directors and induced the
petitioner/complainant to invest in their
company with promises of substantial
return in the phased manner. Additionally,
the accused issued 41 post-dated cheques
of Rs.75,21,059/- each, intended for
monthly deposit and clearance. However,
13 out of these cheques were dishonoured.
During the investigation, it was revealed
that the accused company failed to fulfil its
promise of construction and did not refund
the invested amount to the innocent
investors.

4.

After
completion
of
the
investigation,
the
police
filed
a
supplementary charge sheet against the
opposite party no.2, i.e., the accused, on
21.6.2019 under sections 420, 406, 409,
and 120B IPC. Following the arrest on
9.6.2019, the opposite party no.2 was
released on bail by an order dated
30.9.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.40534 of 2019 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The relevant
paragraph of the order is extracted herein
below:

"1. The applicant will continue to
attend and cooperate in the trial pending
before the Court concerned on the date
fixed after release.

2. He will not tamper with the
witnesses.

3. He will not indulge in any
illegal activities during the bail period.

It is further directed that the
identity, status and residence proof of the
sureties be verified by the authorities
concerned before they are accepted.

In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, the trial court will be at
liberty to cancel the bail."

5. Aggrieved by the violation of the
bail conditions, the informant/applicant has
3 All. G.S. Raghav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1175
preferred
the
instant
petition
for
cancellation of the bail stating inter-alia; (i)
the opposite party no.2 is a habitual
offender
and
indulged
in
huge
embezzlement
of
the
public
money
received from the innocent investors/home
buyers, (ii) Earth Iconic Infrastructure
Limited, i.e. company's fund has been
siphond of in M/s Jubilion Infracon Private
Limited, M/s Murlidhar Infostock and
Realtors Private Limited, M/s Groot
Builders Private Limited, Sanwary Women
Power Private Limited in which the
opposite party no.2 is one of the Directors
along with his mother and wife, (iii)
Rs.1,30,00,000/- have been transferred to
personal account of opposite party no.2
between 30.1.2016 to 1.11.2018, (reference
is invited to Annexure No.5 to the instant
application), (iv) the opposite party no.2 is
a Director in numerous shell companies
located at various parts of the country,(v)
opposite party no.2 obtained bail by
concealing material facts from the Court
withholding that he is arrayed as accused in
multiple FIRs of similar nature, (reference
is invited to paragraph no.30 of the
rejoinder affidavit), (vi) the opposite party
no.2 was first appeared on 20.4.2023 before
the trial court and thereafter on subsequent
dates i.e. 30.1.2023, 21.2.2023, 13.3.2023,
30.6.2023, 17.7.2023, 4.8.2023, 17.8.2023,
25.8.2023,
13.9.2023,
6.10.2023,
20.10.2023, 5.12.2023, 19.12.2023 and
16.1.2024 filed applications for personal
exemption,
which
were
erroneously
allowed
by
the
trial
court
without
appreciating the bail conditions on the basis
of which the opposite party no.2 was
enlarged on bail, (vii) the opposite party
no.2 has violated the bail conditions on
numerous
occasions
by
successively
avoiding appearance before the trial court,
thereby the trial is not progressing because
of the non - cooperation of the accused,
(viii) in view of the conduct and breach of
the bail conditions, the opposite party no.2,
deserved to remain in jail so that trial could
proceed and justice could be done to the
innocent investors, (ix) the other coaccused persons, who were enlarged on bail
by the court are also failing to comply with
the bail terms by filing fictitious personal
exemption applications and taking benefit
of the erroneous orders passed by the trial
court in this regard, (x) and if the trial does
not proceed due to the non-cooperation of
the accused persons, the entire essence of
the criminal justice system would fail,
causing irreparable loss to the functioning
of trial courts.

6. On perusal of the various orders
passed in the instant petition, it reveals that
a notice of service was served upon the
opposite party no.2, but no one turned up to
represent his case before this Court, forcing
this Court to issue bailable warrants to the
sureties
vide
order
dated
29.3.2023,
thereafter,
the
sureties
appeared and
opposite party no.2 through his counsel
sought time to file counter affidavit, and the
same was filed on 13.7.2023 inter-alia
stating that (i) opposite party no.2 was
student in the year 2016 and is not named
in the FIR, (ii) there is no forgery of
documents,
thereby,
the
investigating
officer has dropped section 467/468/471
IPC during the investigation qua accused
persons, (iii) the instant application has
been filed to create pressure on the accused
persons to return the money, (iv) the
opposite party no.2 has never met the
complainant nor signed the document in
this regard, (v) the matter is ceased with the
NCLT and the NCLT has been pleased to
invoke moratorium under section 14 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and
suspended the Board of Directors of the
company, and placed the management of
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
company
under
the
control
of
Resolution
Professional,
(vi)
the
complainant and the home buyers have an
appropriate remedy under section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,
(vii) the Directors of the company have
settled the matter qua some of the home
buyers, and therefore, proceedings on their
behalf have been quashed by the Court,
(viii) the opposite party no.2 has relied
upon State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal
Nathhalal1; Aneeta Hada v. Godfather
Travels & Tours2; Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao3,
Dalip Kaur & ors v. Jagnar Singh4, State
of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi5, to fortify his
submissions.

7. In the written submissions, the
opposite party, no.2, reiterated the same
arguments raised in the counter affidavit.
These points are not addressed separately
for the sake of brevity. However, the
essence of the submissions is that the
directors of the company cannot be held
vicariously liable for the criminal acts
committed by the company's agents or
employees.
Furthermore,
proceedings
under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
2016 have been initiated against the
accused company. Therefore, the criminal
court is not vested with the authority to
prosecute the opposite party no.2.

8. The core and sole issue to be
determined before this Court is whether the
opposite party no.2, i.e., the accused, has
violated the terms and conditions of the bail
order dated 30.9.2019, passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.40534 of 2019,
during the pendency of the trial, and not the
issues raised and argued by the opposite
party no.2. Essentially, bail was granted
subject to three conditions: (i) the applicant
will continue to attend and cooperate in the
trial pending before the concerned Court on
the date fixed after release, (ii) he will not
tamper with the witnesses, and (iii) he will
not engage in any illegal activity during the
bail period. It was also made clear that in
case of a breach of any of the above
conditions, the trial court will be at liberty
to cancel the bail.

9. The instant application has been
pending before this Court since 18.1.2020,
and despite various opportunities on
numerous occasions, it could not be
decided. Therefore, after hearing the
counsel for the applicant and upon perusal
of the material placed on record, including
the
counter
affidavit
and
written
submissions filed by the opposite party
no.2, this Court has proceeded to decide the
instant application.

10. Now, reverting to the contentions
raised in the counter affidavit and written
submissions filed by the accused/opposite
party no.2, it is observed that the decisions
cited by the accused/opposite party no.2 are
not relevant to the facts, circumstances, and
issues involved in this case. Therefore,
there is no point in referencing those
judgments, as none of the aforementioned
citations address the parameters decided by
the Supreme Court for the cancellation of
bail in a series of judgments.

11. In Dolat Ram and others v. State
of Haryana6, the Supreme Court has laid
down the grounds for cancellation of bail.
The relevant portions of the judgment6 are
underlined herein as follows (i) interference
or attempt to interfere with the due course
of administration of justice; (ii) evasion or
attempt to evade the due course of justice;
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the
accused in any manner; (iv) possibility of
the accused absconding; (v) likelihood
3 All. G.S. Raghav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1177
of/actual misuse of bail; (vi) likelihood of
the accused tampering with the evidence or
threatening witnesses. The three-judge
bench of the Supreme Court in Deepak
Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another case7 went a step beyond the
Dolat Ram case (supra) and held that the
cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the
occurrence of supervening circumstances
as the constitutional courts have inherent
power and discretion to cancel the bail of
an accused even in the absence of
supervening circumstances and draw the
following illustrative circumstances where
the bail can be cancelled. The relevant
paragraph is extracted hereinbelow:

33.1. Where the Court granting
bail takes into account irrelevant material
of substantial nature and not trivial nature
while ignoring relevant material on record.

33.2. Where the Court granting
bail overlooks the influential position of the
accused in comparison to the victim of
abuse or the witnesses especially when
there is prima facie misuse of position and
power over the victim.

33.3. Where the past criminal
record and conduct of the accused is
completely ignored while granting bail.

33.4.
Where
bail
has
been
granted on untenable grounds.

33.5.
Where
serious
discrepancies are found in the order
granting bail thereby causing prejudice to
justice.

33.6. Where the grant of bail was
not appropriate in the first place given the
very serious nature of the charges against
the accused which disentitles him for bail
and thus cannot be justified.

33.7. When the order granting
bail is apparently whimsical, capricious
and perverse in the facts of the given case.

12. In view of the foregoing
discussions, this Court has observed that
the opposite party no.2 is facing serious
allegation of embezzlement of funds,
including siphoning of huge amounts into
the companies controlled and operated by
opposite party no.2, i.e. (i) M/s Jubilion
Infracon
Private
Limited,
(ii)
M/s
Murlidhar
Infostock
Realtors
Private
Limited, (iii) M/s Groot Builders Private
Limited, (iv) Sanwary Women Power
Private Limited in which the opposite party
no.2 is one of the Director either along with
his mother or wife or both, besides transfer
of Rs.1,30,00,000/- to his personal account
between 30.1.2016 to 1.11.2018 from the
companies account; (v) the opposite party
no.2/accused has filed personal exemption
applications fourteen times, all of which
were allowed by the trial court in a
mechanical manner by passing template
orders. No reasons are provided in any of
the orders granting the personal exemption
attached to the instant application.

13. The co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, while enlarging the opposite party
no.2 on bail had put the accused to
unambiguous terms inter-alia; (i) the
applicant will continue to attend and
cooperate in trial pending before the Court
concerned on the date fixed after release,
(ii) he will not tamper with the witnesses,
(iii) he will not indulge in any illegal
activity during the bail period, (iv) it was
also made clear that in case of breach of
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any above conditions, the trial court will be
at liberty to cancel the bail.

14. Upon perusing the orders passed
by the trial court, which are part of the
supplementary affidavit dated 5.2.2020
filed by the applicant as Annexure No. SA1, it is observed that the accused/opposite
party no.2 has successively filed fourteen
exemption applications. Regrettably, these
applications were allowed by the trial court
without
assigning
any
reasons.
This
circumstance
compelled
the
complainant/applicant to file the instant
application.
It
demonstrates
that
the
accused/opposite party no.2 deliberately
and intentionally violated the bail terms to
obstruct
the
trial
court
proceedings.
Moreover, the trial court failed in its duty to
exercise the discretion granted to it,
including the authority to cancel bail in
case of any breach of the conditions set
forth
in
the
impugned
order
dated
30.9.2019. The routine issuance of such
template orders undermines the litigant's
confidence in the judicial system and
carries
significant
consequences
for
upholding the rule of law.

15. In consideration of the prayer
made by the applicant and in furtherance of
the pursuit of justice, it is hereby directed
that the trial court shall (i) ensure the
presence of all the accused at each and
every hearing to expedite the trial court
proceedings, (ii) refrain from routinely
granting personal exemption to the accused
through template orders, (iii) ensure the
presence of opposite party no.2 including
all the accused at every hearing unless
justifiable and persuasive reasons for nonappearance are provided, which shall be
duly recorded in the orders, (iv) pass the
order on exemption application while
considering the bail conditions imposed by
the courts upon granting the bail to the
accused,
(v)
the
trail
court
shall
scrupulously and invariably ensure the
compliance of bail conditions imposed by
the respective Courts in each accused's
case, (vi) complete the trial expeditiously.

16. In numerous instances, it has been
observed that once bail is granted, the
accused fails to cooperate with the trial
courts and continuously files successive
exemption
applications
for
personal
appearances on fictitious grounds. The trial
court routinely allows these applications
through template orders without providing
reasons for their approval. Such orders lack
the subjective satisfaction of judges for
their allowance, rendering them devoid of
legal force and unsustainable in the eyes of
the law. Although discretionary power, the
granting of such orders should be exercised
judiciously and not as a matter of routine. It
observed that the trial court routinely issues
template orders for personal exemption
applications, which contravene the spirit of
the bail orders. An example illustrating the
nature
of
such
orders
is
provided
hereinafter."

*****

पत्रावली पेर्श हुई अवभयुक्त .........हावजर है, र्शेर्
की हावजरी माफी प्राथानापत्र आज के वलए स्वीकृि..........

*******

17. In view of the foregoing
discussion-particularly in the offences
forming part of Chapters XVI, XVII, and
XVIII of the Indian Penal Code, besides
other
offences
of
the
Penal
Code
comprising offences in special statutes-it
is mandatory for trial courts to comply with
the terms of the bail order strictly, and the
3 All. Deepanshu Srivastava Vs. Union of India
1179
conditions dictated in bail orders shall be
followed by the trial courts unfailingly.

18. The disregard of the bail
conditions specified in the bail orders by
either party to the litigation or the trial
courts is detrimental to the criminal justice
system and requires scrutiny. Failure to
adhere to the terms of the bail order shall
be deemed deliberate and may amount to
(i) interference or attempted interference
with the due administration of justice; (ii)
evasion or attempted evasion of the due
process of justice, (iii) abuse of the
concession granted to the accused in any
manner; (iv) the possibility of the accused
absconding; (v) the likelihood of or actual
misuse of bail; (vi) the likelihood of the
accused tampering
with
evidence
or
threatening,
or
otherwise
influencing
witnesses. Hence, it is imperative for trial
courts to accord the utmost importance to
personal exemption applications. Such
applications should be adjudicated upon by
taking into account the conditions outlined
in the bail orders. Furthermore, the
aforementioned proposition shall be duly
considered and kept in mind while deciding
the personal exemption application.

19. If the complainant or prosecution
finds that the bail conditions are not being
adhered to, they may file an appropriate
application before the concerned court. The
court should decide on such applications
within a reasonable time, not exceeding 60
days from the date of filing, and proceed
with the trial, utilizing the provisions
outlined in Chapter VI of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, as well as any other
statutory provisions and relevant laws as
may be deemed fit and proper by the court
in the facts and circumstances of the case.

20.

With
the
aforementioned
observations, the instant application is
disposed of, granting the applicant the
liberty to seek redressal of their grievances
from the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-III, Ghaziabad. The court is
directed to adjudicate upon the applicant's
application expeditiously in accordance
with this order.

21. The Registrar (Compliance) of
this Court shall disseminate a copy of this
judgment to all District Judges for
distribution among all Courts under their
jurisdiction
and,
additionally,
to
the
Director of the Judicial Training and
Research Institute, Lucknow, to promote
awareness and facilitate implementation
through training programmers.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1179
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2391 of
2024

Deepanshu Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
Union of India ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shivanshu
Goswami,
Mukesh
Kumar
Tewari, Purnendu Chakravarty

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Digvijay Nath Dubey, Dipak Seth

Criminal Law - Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 69, 70, 73, 74 &
132 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 41 & 41A -Economic Offences -
Reasons to Believe - Arrest and Detention -
Input Tax Credit Fraud