# Sandeep Kumar Garg & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 1118
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-18
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7760 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sandeep-kumar-garg-anr-v-state-of-u-p-50498
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 438--- Applicant
has a criminal history of five cases and he has
not been enlarged in any of the cases, as such,
the said criminal history goes unexplained---
Applicant already agitated the provisions of
Section 482 Cr.P.C. without any success---
Anticipatory bail application is found
devoid of merits and is accordingly
rejected. (Para 23, 24 & 25) (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 7 ILRA 1118
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7760
of 2023
(U/s 438 Cr.P.C)

Sandeep Kumar Garg & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Abhinav Gaur, Sri Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui, Sri
Prateek Rai, Sri Anoop Trivedi (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Alok Ranjan Mishram, Sri Gopal
Swaroop Chaturvedi (Sr. Advocate)

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 438--- Applicant
has a criminal history of five cases and he has
not been enlarged in any of the cases, as such,
the said criminal history goes unexplained---
Applicant already agitated the provisions of
Section 482 Cr.P.C. without any success---
Anticipatory bail application is found
devoid of merits and is accordingly
rejected. (Para 23, 24 & 25) (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kamlesh & anr. Vs The St. of Raj. &
anr.Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 2019 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1530 of 2018 decided on
9.7.2019

2. Ravindra Saxena Vs St. of Raj. (2010) 1 SCC
684

3. Bharat Chaudhary & anr.Vs St. of Bihar &
anr.(2003) 8 SCC 77

4. Vinod Kumar Sharma & anr.Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.SLP (Crl.) No. 6057 of 2021 decided on
16.11.2021
5. Shivam Vs St. of U.P. & anr.AirOnline 2021 All
484

6. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr.2022 SCC Online SC 825

7. Aman Preet Singh Vs C.B.I. through Director
AIR 2021 SC 4154

8. Siddharth Vs The St. of U.P. & anr.(2022) 1
SCC 676

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Counter affidavit filed by learnd
counsel for the informant and rejoinder
affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed
by learned counsel for the applicants are
taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav
Gaur, learned counsel for the applicants and
Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok
Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and also
perused the material available on record.

3. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 128 of
2018, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120(B) IPC, Police Station
Swarup Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, with
a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory
bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. As per allegations in FIR, the
applicants and the informant are the
directors in MTG Infra Power Private Ltd.
Company. It was agreed upon by the
directors that the said company shall file
7 All. Sandeep Kumar Garg & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1119
tenders
for
contracts
in
the
State
departments and the released amount shall
be deposited in the joint account of the
informant and the named accused persons
in the FIR.

5. On 30.9.2013, ten tenders were
issued in favour of the company, but the
applicants
and
co-accused
persons
Somendra Mehta and Romendra Mehta are
stated to have committed criminal breach
of trust and had deposited the said amount
in different account numbers to which the
informant was not the authorized signatory.
The said account numbers are A/c No.
2336002100016082
of
PNB,
Panki,
Kanpur, A/c No. 032605008262 of ICICI
Bank, Govind Nagar, Kanpur and A/c No.
07271300000712 Punjab and Sind Bank,
Transport Nagar, Kanpur. Thus, the whole
amount was usurped by the applicants and
other
named
co-accused
persons
in
collusion with other unknown persons. The
applicants and the co-accused persons are
stated to have filed forged documents in the
official records and also had filed fake bank
guarantees before State Authorities.

6. Subsequent to it, another Bank A/c
No. 0043002100062099 was also opened in
PNB Bareilly, and Rs.19 crores were deposited
in it, which was debited by the applicants and
the other co-accused persons illegally.

7. On 18.4.2016 and 25.4.2016, the
applicants
are
even
stated
to
have
purchased two BMW Cars with registration
no. UP 78 E 7722 and UP 78 EH 0055
worth Rs. 65 lakhs each. They are even
purported to have purchased another
Fortuner Toyota Car worth Rs. 35 lakhs in
the month of May-June 2018. Thus, they
have illegally and with malicious intent,
misused about Rs. 1 crore 50 lakhs of the
company.

8. In September-October 2017, a new
Bank A/c No. 4845214000005 was opened
in Canara Bank, Civil Lines, Kanpur, to
which applicant no. 1, Sandeep Kumar
Garg and co-accused person Somendra
Mehta were authorized signatories, and an
amount of about Rs. 30 crores is stated to
have been deposited in it and withdrawn by
them. The applicants and other co-accused
persons are even stated to have deposited
fake bank guarantees in the department. It
is also mentioned in the FIR that the
applicants have criminal antecedents.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

ONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANTS:

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicants has stated that the applicants are
maliciously being prosecuted in the present
case due to ulterior motive. They have the
apprehension of their arrest. The applicants
have nothing to do with the said offence as
alleged by the prosecution. Learned Senior
Counsel has stated that in the said case, closure
report was filed by the investigating officer
after a detailed investigation. A protest petition
was filed by the informant and the applicants
were summoned by the court concerned by
rejecting the closure report, and the court
concerned was pleased to take cognizance in
the case under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B
IPC vide order dated 29.10.2021.

10. Subsequent to it, the informant
had filed a criminal revision before the
Sessions Judge, Kanpur, whereby the said
cognizance order was set aside vide order
dated
15.3.2022
and
the
Magistrate
concerned was ordered to pass a fresh order
after hearing the parties on merits, as such,
the
learned
Magistrate
concerned
summoned the applicants under Sections
406, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC.
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Learned Senior Counsel has stated
that the co-accused persons Somendra
Mehta and one another person had
challenged the said summoning order by
filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11879
of 2021 in which the proceedings were
stayed vide order dated 7.9.2021. It is next
stated that the applicants have been put to
double jeopardy as the matter is of civil
nature and already it is pending before the
NCLT with respect to the said company
matter.

12. Learned counsel has further stated
that another petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C No.
35335 of 2022 has been dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 2.1.2023. Learned
counsel has also stated that applicant nos. 1
and 2 are father and son. The applicant no.
2- son has nothing to do with the said
offence and has been implicated owing to
his relationship with the applicant no. 1-his
father. It is further argued that the applicant
no. 1 is terminally ill and is suffering from
brain tumour.

13. Learned counsel has placed
reliance on the judgements of the Apex
Court passed in Kamlesh & another vs.
The State of Rajasthan & Another1.

14. Learned counsel has also placed
reliance on the judgement of the Apex
Court in Ravindra Saxena vs. State of
Rajasthan2, whereby the anticipatory bail
was granted to the applicants therein, on
the ground that the matter was purely of
civil in nature and the complainant had
already
filed
a
suit
for
specific
performance.

15. Learned counsel has also placed
reliance on the judgement of the Apex
Court in Bharat Chaudhary and another
vs. State of Bihar and another3 .

16. Learned counsel has also placed
reliance on the judgement of the Apex
Court in Vinod Kumar Sharma and
another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another4, whereby the petitioners had
challenged the said filing of charge sheet
and were granted time by the court
concerned to apply for regular bail. Instead,
the applicants herein had applied for
anticipatory bail, as such, it was opined that
the bail includes anticipatory bail.

17. Learned counsel has also stated
that already the petition before the NCLT is
pending in which the interim order was
passed on 15.11.2021 for both the parties to
appear before the Court in the AGM, and it
is the informant, who had defrauded the
said order and has not complied with it. As
such, the applicants had even filed
contempt petition before the NCLT, which
is still pending. It is next stated that the
applicant no. 2 has no criminal history. The
criminal history of the applicant no. 1
stands explained as there are the FIRs
instituted by his tenants as Case Crime No.
160 of 2021, P.S. Gwaltoli, District Kanpur
Nagar and another Case Crime No. 187 of
2021, P.S. Gwaltoli, District Kanpur Nagar,
Case Crime No. 2 of 2023, P.S.
Collectorganj, district Kanpur Nagar and
Case Crime No. 26 of 2016 pending at
Police Station-Sector 49, Noida, district
Gautambudh Nagar. It is next stated that
in the case at Noida, the applicant no. 1
was not named. Rather, it was against the
company itself and the matter has been
referred
to
Lokayukt
after
passing
through
various
forums.
The
said
criminal history stands explained vide
rejoinder affidavit.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE INFORMANT AND STATE:
7 All. Sandeep Kumar Garg & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1121

18. On the other hand, learned A.G.A.
and learned Senior Counsel for the
informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the
ground that already the applicants had
agitated the provisions of Section 482
Cr.P.C. at this Court and had failed as no
stay order has been granted in the present
case, as such, they have approached this
Court by filing anticipatory bail. This
tantamounts to forum hunting as the
applicants, who are habitual in using
various courts, are themselves deliberately
evading arrest. Learned counsel has placed
reliance on the judgement of this Court
passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2529 of
2022 (Sabir Ali and State of U.P. and 2
others) whereby in a detailed order, it has
been stated that if the applicants had filed a
petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., no anticipatory bail
application can be entertained.

19. Learned Senior Counsel for the
first informant has stated that the applicant
has not come with clean hands, as he has
concealed the fact that he had filed
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
No. 15383 of 2022 before this Court
challenging the order dated 15.3.2022
passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Kanpur
Nagar, in 283 of 2021, arising out of Case
Crime No. 128 of 2018 (present case).
Learned Senior Counsel has next stated that
no protection has been granted to the
applicant despite the case being taken up
four times.

20. Thus, the case law settled by this
Court in Shivam v. State of U.P. and
another5 applies to the case of the
applicants and they are not entitled for
anticipatory bail. Learned Senior Counsel
has also placed reliance on the judgement
of this Court passed in Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438
Cr.P.C. No. 2529 of 2022, whereby much
reliance has been placed on the judgement
passed by the Apex Court in Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another6, Aman Preet
Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director7 and
Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
and another8. No anticipatory bail can be
entertained
after
having
agitated
the
provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

21. In rebuttal, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant has stated that the
applicant has every right to file anticipatory
bail as the word 'bail' includes 'anticipatory
bail' also.

CONCLUSION:

22. It is true that the word 'bail'
includes 'anticipatory bail' also, as such,
the anticipatory bail has been heard at
length. The present case does not fall
within the category to be of civil nature
only. The judgement of Kamlesh and
another (supra) does not apply to this case,
as the matter pertains to the State of
Rajasthan, where the petition u/s 482
Cr.P.C. is entertained before the filing of
final report (charge sheet), as such, in the
case, FIR has been challenged while in the
present case, that stage has already passed.

23. The judgements of Ravindra
Saxena (supra), Bharat Chaudhary and
another
(supra)
and Vinod
Kumar
Sharma (supra) also do not apply to the
present case in clear terms. It is an admitted
fact that the applicant no. 1 Sandeep Kumar
Garg has a criminal history of five cases
and he has not been enlarged in any of the
cases, as such, the said criminal history
goes unexplained.
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. After hearing the parties and
taking into consideration the criminal
history of applicant no. 1 and also the fact
that they have already agitated the
provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. without
any success, and the case law referred
above, I do not find it a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicants Sandeep
Kumar Garg and Gaurang Garg.

25. In view of the above, the present
anticipatory bail application is found
devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 1122
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 51656 of 2022

Ramesh @ Punna ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sudhakar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
439---
The
applicant is languishing in jail for the last 14
years and 8 months---Co-accused person
granted bail--- Applicant is also entitled to
get bail on the basis of parity--- In order to
ensure public peace and the welfare of the
society, such convicted criminals who are
kidnappers, heinous and habitual criminals,
habitual offenders in crimes related to
genocide--- To ensure public peace and the
well-being of the society, life convicts who
are hardened criminals, repeat offenders,
kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre
(three or more than three murders), habitual
criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as
per the U.P. criminals, and fall in prohibited
categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing
Policy - no bail should be granted---Bail
application rejected with the direction to trial
court to ensure that the session trial related
to this case is disposed of on an expeditious
basis. .(E-15)

List of Cases cited:

Saudan Singh Vs The ST.of U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1. वतगमान दाडण्डक प्रकीणग िमानत प्राथगना पत्र आवेदक
रमेश उफग पुन्ना की ओर से मु०अ०सं०684/2007 से उद्धृत
एस०टी०नं०98,
सन््‌
2022
अंतर्गत
धारा
147,148,149,307,302 भा०द०डव०, थाना िलालाबाद,
डिला शाहिहांपुर में िमानत पर मुक्त करने हेतु प्रस्तुत डकया र्या है।

2. आवेदक के डवद्वान अडधवक्ता एवं डवद्वान अपर
शासकीय अडधवक्ता श्री रािेन्र डसंह को सुना तथा पत्रावली का
पररशीलन डकया।

3. संक्षेप में अडभयोिन कथानक यह है डक आई०िी०िोन
बरेली के डनदेशानुसार 50,000/- रू० के इनामी डकैत नरेशा
धीमर के द्वारा अपहृत डकये र्ये व्यडक्तयों को छो़िने के डलए सीधे
लेन-देन की सूचना पर डन०प्रभारी एस०ओ०िी० व संपूणग पुडलस
फोसग ग्राम चचुआपुर कटरी पहुंची, िहां अडभयुक्तर्ण द्वारा कडम्बंर्
के दौरान पुडलस बल पर िान से मारने की डनयत से फायररंर् डकया
र्या एवं बचाव में पुडलस पाटी द्वारा फायररंर् करने पर बदमाशों से
2 अपहृतों को मुक्त कराना तथा अडभयुक्त 1- नरेश पुत्र बलारू, 2-
भूरा उफग कोटेदार, 3- िन्टरू, 4- मौकू उफग चेला उफग चैडम्पयन
रािकुमार यादव, 5- अन्य बदमाश ने एक राय होकर घातक
आयुधों से सुसडजित होकर बलवा डकया र्या, फायररंर् कर ब्रिेश,
बब्लू एवं अन्य लोर्ो को घायल डकया तथा पुडलस के िवान
आरक्षी यशवीर की र्ोली मारकर हत्या कर दी।

4. आवेदक के डवद्वान अडधवक्ता ने तकग प्रस्तुत डकया डक
आवेदन को इस प्रकरण में र्लत व फिी तरीके से झूठा फंसाया र्या
है, उसने कडथत अपराध काररत नहीं डकया है। आवेदक प्रथम सूचना
ररपोटग में नामिद नहीं है। आवेदन का नाम मामले में कडथत घटना
के दस माह उपरांत प्रकाश में लाया र्या है। आवेदक को तथा