Allahabad High Court
Atul Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1927 of 2023 Applicant :- Atul Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhupendra Pal,Satyendra Kumar Tripathi,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Atul Pratap Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.426 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Sector-63, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.
The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, who was interested in some construction projects carried on at Noida, visited the site of PKS Builders, where the present accused-applicant and co-accused Yatin Narang met and explained the whole project of the company and other relevant details to him. Other co-accused Gaurav Singh also met there and for the sake of business Manish Gupta, Manoj Upadhaya and Tapan Pandey were also contacted. It was agreed upon between the parties that the value of the total six units would be Rs.6.5 crores, out of which, 10% amount was to be paid at the time of booking, 10% within next 90 days, 40% on completion of the building structure and rest 40% was to be paid finally at the time of taking possession. The informant anyhow managed Rs.45 lakhs, out of which, Rs.20 lakhs were paid by two cheques valuing Rs.10 lakhs each and Rs.25 lakhs in cash and the said cheques and cash amount were received by the present accused Atul Pratap Singh and co-accused Gaurav Singh and Ms. Bharti (account head) jointly and then the said money was handed over to Manish Gupta, the owner of the company. After clearance of cheque receipt was also issued by the company on 09.11.2021 and all the aforesaid proceedings took place in the site office of the company PKS Builders. However, for the payment of amount of Rs.20 lakhs, the company insisted and thereupon, the present accused-applicant along with co-accused Deepti Sharma came to Dehradun where the informant paid Rs. 20 lakhs cash to them and the receipt of the said amount was also acknowledged by them and also on telephone by co-accused Gaurav Singh and Yatin Narang. It is also further alleged that another commercial spaces GD 6, 7, 8 were also agreed upon to be taken by the informant on the request of the present accused and the transaction was settled for Rs.3,31,24000/- which was approved by phone by co-accused Gaurav Singh and Manish Gupta and in this respect, a cheque of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.35 lakhs cash were received by the present accused applicant which was deposited in the company and the receipt thereof was also given. It is further alleged that a total Rs.1.3 crores through cheque and cash were paid by the informant to the company, out of which, the company admitted the payment made by cheques but out of the total cash amount, Rs.80 lakhs, receiving of Rs.56 lakhs was denied by the company and in this way, all the accused-applicants including the present one have made wrongful gain by fraudulently taking huge money from the informant in criminal conspiracy with each other in the commission of the aforesaid crime; forged and fabricated receipt were procured and even in the booking form of commercial space, some alteration was made and thereby forgery was committed with the informant of the case.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused applicant. Processes under Sections 82 & 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant along with non-bailable warrant. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
It is further submitted that no money is due against the present accused-applicant to be paid to the informant as all the amount given by the informant in cash or through cheques has been handed over by the accused-applicant to the company. It is further submitted that the owner of the company Amitesh Pandey has himself admitted the receipt of the aforesaid amount in whatsapp chat with the present accused applicant. It is further submitted that the accused is only an employee of the company and he has no concern with the accounting of the company. It is further submitted that the father of the present accused-applicant is seriously ill and he has no criminal history and investigation of the case is going on. On the aforesaid basis, it has been prayed that accused-applicant is entitled for grant of relief of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently argued that the whole fraud has been committed by the accused-applicant himself in collusion with his company and other co-accused persons because out of the huge amount given by the informant to the present accused-applicant Rs.56 lakhs were not paid by him in the company and the same was dishonestly misappropriated to his own use. It is further submitted that the alleged whatsapp chat regarding the receipt of the money between the applicant and the owner of the company is totally false and fabricated and regarding the same, an application u/s 340(1) of Cr.P.C. has already been filed by the owner of the company against the present accused applicant. It is further submitted that during the course of evidence, sufficient evidence has been collected against the accused-applicant so far. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution story is based on cogent and reliable documentary and oral evidence and the issue of recovery of money is also involved in the matter and in this regard, the custodial interrogation of the present accused-applicant is certainly required.
In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Such a person, who does not cooperate in the matter, is not entitled for any relief from this Court by way of granting anticipatory bail. Prayer made in the application is refused.
The anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023/Shivangi