Sudhir Kumar Bhola vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court considered the arguments advanced by both parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court in "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98". The Court found that the matter pertained to the registration of GST in favor of the applicant for a different firm, even though the address was the same as that of the informant. This was deemed a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The Court explicitly stated that these observations were made without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the case, which would not adversely affect the trial. The applicant was released on anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions including availability for interrogation, not tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission, and not pressuring witnesses.

Facts

The applicant, Sudhir Kumar Bhola, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 342 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The prosecution alleged that the applicant forged a consent letter of the informant regarding shop ownership to obtain a GST number (09DDJPB2047H1ZP). Although the GST certificate was initially cancelled upon the informant's application, the applicant subsequently got it renewed. The applicant claimed malicious prosecution due to ulterior motives, asserting the matter was civil in nature and that he, as the informant's maternal uncle, had obtained the GST number for his firm, New Fancy Jewelers. He also stated he had no criminal antecedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 342 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, considering the allegations of forgery and misuse of a consent letter for GST registration. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was being maliciously prosecuted with an ulterior motive and had nothing to do with the alleged offense. He contended that the matter was civil in nature, pertaining to a consent letter, and that he was a bonafide person and the informant's maternal uncle. He further stated that the informant had previously declared no association with the firm 'New Fancy Jewelers' in a Negotiable Instruments Act case. The applicant also submitted that he had no criminal antecedents and would cooperate with the trial if granted bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The informant and the learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail, arguing that the applicant continuously misused a consent letter that was not on record. They pointed out that the applicant only produced a photocopy and failed to produce original documents for signature verification, a fact substantiated by the anticipatory bail cancellation order of the learned Sessions Judge.