# Manish Gupta v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 476
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 9423 of 2022
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-47901
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 177,
182, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 207, 209,
463, 464, 468, 471, 120-B, 420, 504 &
506 - Application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. -
Matter related to family discord - civil
proceedings between parties since 1983 -
final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. - challenged
under 482 Cr.P.C. - possibility of an amicable
solution - matter of apprehension of arrest -
non-bailable warrant issued against applicant
- no likelihood of applicant absconding - Held
- applicant entitled to be granted anticipatory
bail. (Para - 16,17)

Anticipatory Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Today, most judges are inclined
to say that what was once thought to be the
exception is the rule, and what was the rule
is the exception..... There has been a new
generalization which, applied to new
particulars, yields results more in harmony
with part particulars, and, what is still
more important, more consistent with the
social welfare. This work of modification is
gradual. It goes on inch by inch. Its effects
must be measured by decades and even
centuries. Thus measured, they are seen to
have behind them the power and the
pressure of the moving glacier.

Lord Halsbury said in Quinn v.
Leathom, 1901, A.C. 495, 506: "A case is
only an authority for what it actually
decides. I entirely deny that it can be
quoted for a proposition that may seem to
follow logically from it. Such a mode of
reasoning
assumes
that
the
law
is
necessarily a logical code, whereas every
lawyer must acknowledge that the law is
not always logical at all."

21. Thus, every judgement has to be seen
to its own context and facts and the precedents
cannot be applied universally to every case.

22. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicants.

23. The anticipatory bail application
is found devoid of merits and is,
accordingly, rejected.

24. However, it is made clear that the
observations
made
hereinabove
in
declining the anticipatory bail to the
applicants shall not in any way affect the
learned
trial
Judge
in
forming
his
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 476
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 CR.P.C. No. 9423 of 2022

Manish Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi,
Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Sunil Kumar

(A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 177,
182, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 207, 209,
463, 464, 468, 471, 120-B, 420, 504 &
506 - Application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. -
Matter related to family discord - civil
proceedings between parties since 1983 -
final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. - challenged
under 482 Cr.P.C. - possibility of an amicable
solution - matter of apprehension of arrest -
non-bailable warrant issued against applicant
- no likelihood of applicant absconding - Held
- applicant entitled to be granted anticipatory
bail. (Para - 16,17)

Anticipatory Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I. & anr. , 2022
SCC Online SC 825

2. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC online SC 98

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)
12 All. Manish Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
477

1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Ranjan
Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for
the informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.1532 of
2021, under Sections 177, 182, 191, 192,
193, 196, 200, 207, 209, 463, 464, 468,
471, 120-B, 420, 504 & 506 IPC, Police
Station-
Kotwali
Shahar,
District-
Bulandshahr, with a prayer to enlarge him
on anticipatory bail during the pendency of
the trial.

PROSECUTION STORY

3. An application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
was filed by the first informant Mahesh
Kumar, in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Bulandshahr on
20.09.2021
alleging that the informant and his brothers
are the landlords and are in possession of
Jagdish Cinema. The informant and his
brothers had decided to rent the said cinema
hall to Vipul Mittal and Atul Mittal. On
06.09.2021 at about 08:00 AM, when the
informant and his brothers were preparing a
rent deed with deed writer Sudhir Gupta at
the Jagdish Cinema hall then at about 08:30
AM, the applicant and co-accused persons
Chandra Prakash Gupta and Pradeep Kumar
along with three unknown persons came
there, started hurling abuses at them and are
stated to have demanded a ransom of Rs.1
crore in lieu of the said rent deed/ any saledeed. On the same day at about 11:00 AM,
when the informant and his brothers reached
the office of Registrar then again the said six
persons met them and misbehaved with them.
The Sub-Registrar showed three applications
filed by the applicant and his brothers to stop
the registration of the said rent deed. The
informant
along
with
the
persons
accompanied with him perused the said three
applications and it was found that the
language used in the said applications are
similar and the witness in one application is
the complainant in another application.
Further in the said applications, it was alleged
that the Court below has passed an order
dated 18.9.2002 in Case No.07 of 2008,
Mahendra
Kumar
Vs.
Chavli
Devi,
restraining the informant and his brothers to
transfer the alleged property through saledeed or any other means. The informant
apprehended that the applicant and his
brothers are trying to rent the said property to
someone else. Thereupon, the applicant
showed the other documents including the
order dated 5.4.2011 wherein the informant
and his brothers were declared as the sole
owners of the said cinema hall and thereafter,
the said rent deed was registered by the
Registrar in spite of the said applications filed
by the applicant and his brothers. It is also
alleged that the applicant and his brothers
have filed fake and forged documents before
the Registrar and have interfered in his
official work who is a public servant.

4. The accused persons have
furnished false information with intent to
cause public servant to use his lawful
power to the injury of another person, and
have given false evidence and have used
the said documents knowing them to be
false, and have fraudulently claimed the
property not vested in them and, thus,
have committed forgery by preparing a
false document for the purpose of
cheating and dishonestly made a false
claim in Court. Learned Magistrate had
ordered for registration of FIR and after
investigation, the charge-sheet against the
applicant and his brothers has been filed
on 03.11.2021.
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant has submitted that a Civil Suit
No.97 of 1983 (Smt. Chavli Devi and
others Vs. Mahendra Kumar and others)
was filed for declaration regarding the
ownership of property of Jagdish Cinema
Hall and the same was dismissed ex-parte
by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.
Division), Court No.4, Bulandshahr vide
order dated 18.9.2002. Against the said
dismissal order dated 18.9.2002, Smt.
Chavli Devi and others had filed Civil
Appeal No.204 of 2002 which was allowed
ex-parte by the Court of Additional District
Judge, Court No.12, Bulandshahr vide
order dated 23.1.2008. Aggrieved by the
order dated 23.1.2008, an application under
Order 41 Rule 21 of C.P.C. was filed by
Mahendra
Kumar
bearing
Misc.
Application No.7 of 2008 in Civil Appeal
No.204 of 2002 (Mahendra Kumar vs.
Chavli Devi and others) on which the
learned Court below vide order dated
22.2.2008
directing
the
respondents/plaintiffs in the original suit,
not to sale out the property in question, till
the next date of listing, but subsequently,
the said application was dismissed on
5.4.2011 by learned Additional District
Judge,
Court
No.8,
Bulandshahr.
Consequently, a First Appeal From Order
(FAFO) No.2300 of 2011 (Mahendra
Kumar (deceased) and others vs. Chavli
Devi (deceased) and others) has been filed
before this Court, which is still pending for
final disposal. Learned Senior Counsel has
further submitted that in the meantime, a
rent deed of whole property including the
residential house (the property in question)
was executed by the informant Mahesh
Kumar and his brothers on 6.9.2021 in
favour of Atul Mittal and Vipul Mittal, sons
of Ashok Mittal, which was registered in
Bahi No.1, Zild No.8279, Page No.291 to
302 at Serial No.5861 in the office of SubRegistrar, Sadar-I, Bulandshahr.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has further
stated that prior to the registration of the
aforesaid rent deed in favour of the Atul
Mittal and Vipul Mittal, an application was
given
to
Sub-Registrar,
Sadar-I,
Bulandshahr on 6.9.2021 by the applicant
to restrain the informant and his brothers
from exhibiting any deed regarding the
property in question as the matter is stated
to be subjudiced. He has further stated that
thereafter the informant filed an Original
Suit bearing No.1803 of 2021 (Mahesh
Kumar Agarwal Vs. Pradeep Kumar and
Others) before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.
Division),
Court
No.1,
Bulandshahr
wherein the applicant has been arrayed as
one of the respondents. The applicant had
filed a written statement in the said O.S.
and the suit is pending for adjudication.
The informant and his brothers filed
another Original Suit being O.S. No.2050
of 2021 before the Court below on
12.10.2021 wherein the applicant is the
sole respondent/defendant with respect to
the same property and the written statement
has already been filed on behalf of the
applicant in it.

7. Learned Senior Counsel has further
stated that after the submission of chargesheet, the cognizance has been taken by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr on
16.2.2022 and non-bailable warrants have
been issued against the applicant and other
accused persons without considering the
fact that the summons have never been
served to him. He has further stated that the
applicant has very much apprehension that
he may be arrested in the present matter
instituted at the behest of the informant.
The present charge-sheet has been filed
12 All. Manish Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
479
under duress without going through the fact
that there is a civil litigation going on
between the parties.

8. Admittedly, the parties belong to
the same family and having fallen apart
over partition in the ancestral property,
several civil and criminal proceedings have
been initiated against each other. Learned
Senior Counsel has further stated that the
applicant has no other criminal antecedents
except the cases pertaining to the same
property. The informant has agitated the
recourse to civil court and the criminal
court simultaneously for the alleged act
committed by the applicant and his
brothers. Learned Senior Counsel has
placed much reliance upon the Annexure-2
filed with the supplementary affidavit dated
30.9.2022 wherein it has been stated that
NBW is in operation against the applicants
vide order dated 27.9.2022 which was
earlier issued on 18.8.2022.

9. Learned Senior Counsel has also
stated that the applicant has challenged the
impugned
charge-sheet
by
filing
an
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.19652 of
2022 wherein the following order has been
passed on 26.9.2022:-

"Heard Santosh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for applicants and Shri.
Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for O.P.
No.2.

Learned counsel for parties fairly
submits that parties are closely related to
each other and there is a possibility of
mediation.

Considering the aforesaid fair
submissions of learned counsel for parties,
let the parties shall appear before this
Court on 13.10.2022.

Put up as fresh on 13.10.2022 at
2 P.M."

10. Learned Senior Counsel has
further argued that there is every likelihood
of amicable settlement between the parties.

11. Per contra, Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned counsel for the informant as well as
Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned AGA for
the State have vehemently opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground
that although there is a possibility of an
amicable settlement between the parties,
the said application is not maintainable as
there is no apprehension to the applicant of
his arrest as the learned C.J.M. has
observed in his order dated 27.9.2022
which read as under:-

"Okknh eqdnek dh vksj ls vfHk;qDr ds
fo:)
fcuk
tekurh
vf/ki=
o
82&83
lh0vkj0ih0lh0 dh dk;Zokgh tkjh djus dh ;kpuk
dh x;h gS] ijUrq muds }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
}kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 26-9-2022 ls bUdkj ugha
fd;k x;k gSA vr% leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr
26-9-2022 o lrsUnz dqekj vafry cuke lsUVzy C;wjks
vkWQ bUosLVhds'ku ,oa vU; 1⁄420221⁄2 ,l0lh0 esa
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fof/k O;oLFkk dks
n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vfHk;qDr dks U;k;fgr esa U;k;ky;
esa mifLFkr gksus gsrq volj fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr
izrhr gksrk gSA"

12. Learned counsel for the informant
has further stated that in the FAFO filed
against the said Civil Suit, there is no stay
of the proceedings. Learned counsel has
placed much reliance upon Sections 70 and
438 of Cr.P.C. and stated that since the
applicant has no apprehension of his arrest,
the present anticipatory bail application is
not maintainable and Section 438 Cr.P.C.
does not apply.

13. Learned counsel for the informant
has relied upon Sections 6, 23, 24, 25, 26,
29 & 30 IPC but for the sake of prolixity,
the same are not being reproduced here.
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Learned counsel has also placed reliance
upon Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act
and stated that the bar u/s 195(b)(i) of
Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the present case.
He has also stated that the general
exception u/s 79 of IPC is also not
available to the applicant.

14. In rejoinder to the said arguments,
learned Senior Counsel Sri G.S. Chaturvedi
has placed much reliance upon Illustration
(a) of Section 464 IPC which read as
under:-

"(a) A has a letter of credit upon
B for rupees 10,000 written by Z. A, in
order to defraud B, adds a cipher to the
10,000, and makes the sum 1,00,000
intending that it may be believed by B that
Z so wrote the letter. A has committed
forgery."

15. Learned Senior Counsel has
further stated that the applicant has neither
forged a document nor filed it by
impersonating somebody else. He has
signed the said document for himself only.
No offence is made out. If some statement
in the said document is found false then
only an offence u/s 182 IPC is made out,
wherein the maximum punishment is six
months. The applicant belongs to a
respectable family of the area and there is
no likelihood of him absconding.

CONCLUSION

16. As admitted by both the parties,
the matter is of family discord and civil
proceedings have been going on between
the parties since 1983. The applicant has
challenged the filing of final report u/s
173(2) Cr.P.C. by filing an application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. wherein there is a possibility of
an amicable solution to the said dispute
once for all. The matter of apprehension of
arrest is in the mind of the accused and
there are non-bailable warrant issued
against the applicant although, C.J.M.,
Bulandshahr has passed an order to the
effect that the applicant may appear in the
light of the judgement of Satender Kumar
Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825. The
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is pending in
this Court and the offence does not fall
within the category of economic offences
rather it may be termed to be of making
false statement before the executive officer.
There is no likelihood of applicant
absconding.

17. Considering the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, nature and gravity of the offences,
facts of the case and in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
"Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the
applicant
is
entitled
to
be
granted
anticipatory bail in this case.

18. Without expressing any opinion
upon ultimate merits of the case either
ways which may be adversely affect the
trial of the case, the anticipatory bail
application of the applicant is allowed.

19. In the event of arrest of the
applicant, Manish Gupta, involved in the
aforesaid case crime number, shall be
released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding
Officer/Court
Concerned,
with
the
conditions that:-

1. that the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;
12 All. Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
481

2. 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 to
any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

3. that the applicant shall not leave
India without previous permission of the court;

4. that the applicant shall not tamper
with the evidence during the trial;

5. that the applicant shall not
pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

6. that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed unless
personal presence is exempted;

20. In case of breach of any of the above
conditions, the court below shall have the
liberty to cancel the bail granted to the
applicant.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 481
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 24375 of
2022

Indrajeet Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.S. Dubey, Smt. Savita Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 439 ,
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8/20 , 37 -
Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable
-
"Reasonable
grounds"
-
exercise of power to grant bail is not only
subject to the limitations contained under
Section 439 of the CrPC - but is also
subject to the limitation placed by Section
37 which commences with non-obstante
clause - merely recording the submissions
of the parties does not amount to an
indication of a judicial or, for that matter,
a judicious application of mind.(Para - 8,9)

Commercial quantity of Ganja 20 kgs -
recovered & seized total amount of Ganja
151.45 Kgs - more than commercial quantity -
recovery of huge quantity of Ganja - applicant
was apprehended at spot - conscious and
constructive possession over recovered Ganja
.(Para - 5)

HELD:- No reasonable ground in terms of
Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act to hold that applicant
is not guilty of an offence and he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.(Para - )

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Kerala Vs Rajesh, AIR 2020 SC 721

2. U.O.I. Vs Prateek Shukla, AIR, 2021 SC 1509

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. This bail application has been filed
to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case
Crime No. 127/2022, under section 8/20 of
Narcotics
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act,1985 Police Station-Geeda,
District Gorakhpur.

2. According to the prosecution story,
believing upon the information of the
''Mukhbir', during patrolling duty, police
personnel went on the spot i.e. Tandua Toll
Plaza, at Devariya- Gorakhpur By-pass and
arrested all the the three accused persons
including
the
present
applicant
and
recovered 151.450 kg 'Ganza' from the