Harminder Singh @ Rishi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The applicant, Harminder Singh @ Rishi, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the complainant had entrusted his shop and business to the accused persons as representatives. It was further alleged that with the connivance of a Tax Officer, forged documents were used to transfer the GST registration of the complainant's firm to the accused. The complainant claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs. 25,00,000/- due to the accused retaining goods meant for his shop. The applicant contended that the dispute was civil in nature, a suit for permanent injunction had been filed, and the FIR was lodged with significant delay after the alleged events in 2011-12 and GST registration in 2018. The applicant also highlighted a prior complaint to state authorities which opined the dispute was regarding family partition, and an FIR lodged by the applicant against the complainant.
Held
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the submissions, the fact that the applicant had no criminal history, the pendency of a civil suit, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the prima facie civil nature of the matter. It was deemed expedient in the interest of justice to protect the applicant's liberty until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The Court relied on the Apex Court's dictum in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). The applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond with sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not influencing witnesses, remaining present for interrogation, and not leaving India without prior court permission. Default in compliance would allow the investigating agency to seek vacation of the interim protection.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. given the allegations of fraud, forgery, and cheating related to GST registration and business dealings, and the pending civil dispute. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, evidenced by a pending suit for permanent injunction concerning the subject property. They emphasized the significant delay in lodging the FIR (lodged on 13.05.2022 for events allegedly occurring in 2011-12 and GST registration in 2018). The applicant also pointed to an IGRS report indicating the dispute was a family partition matter, requiring no police action, and an FIR lodged by the applicant against the complainant. The applicant assured cooperation with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the accused had usurped the shop entrusted to them. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer. No specific arguments were recorded for the State regarding GST provisions.
Sections Cited
Section 438 Cr.PC., Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 544 of 2023 Applicant :- Harminder Singh @ Rishi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Aziz Mansuri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Shailendra Pathak Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.151 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kaisarganj, District Bahraich. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Shailendra Pathak, learned Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2-complainant which is taken on record. As per prosecution case, informant and accused are relatives. On request of grand-mother of the accused persons, the complainant in the year 2011-12 has kept the accused persons in his shop situated at Bahraich and the business was handed over to the accused as a representative of the complainant. It is further alleged that with the connivance of the Tax Officer by preparing forged documents, the GST registration of the firm of the informant has been transferred in the name of the accused. The cloths which arrive for the complainant's shop, the accused persons have kept the goods in their shop and on account of this the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.25,00,000/-. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant and accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are real brothers; dispute is purely civil in nature; the suit for permanent injunction has been filed against the applicant in respect to the property which is subject matter of the F.I.R. by the informant, memo of suit is on record. He submits that offence is alleged to have taken place on 2011-
The GST registration is also alleged to have been made in the year 2018 however, the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of several years on 13.05.2022. The applicant side has also made a complaint to the state authority through IGRS in which inquiry was conducted by the concerned Police Station wherein it has been opined by the Police authorities that dispute is regarding family partition and no action on part of the Police is required, IGRS report of the concerned police station is on record. It is further contended by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant side has also lodged an F.I.R. against the informant which has been registered as F.I.R. No.0405/2022 under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that investigation is going on, applicant will cooperate in the investigation. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant has submitted that by showing mercy on the accused persons, he has kept them in their shop which has been usurped now by the accused persons. He submits that no interim order has been passed in the civil suit and the same is pending against the accused persons. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail prayer. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of record as also the fact that applicant has no criminal history; civil suit is pending before the competent court; the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and prima facie matter appears to be civil in nature, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. (2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. (3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 1.3.2023 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.