Shanti Lal Bhai Lodhiya And Another vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The primary reasoning was based on the fact that the GST number for the firm M/s Radhay Jewellers had been cancelled on October 1, 2019, which was 14 days prior to the alleged offense on October 14, 2019. This cancellation, coupled with the fact that the amount was transferred to the firm's account and there was nothing on record to suggest the applicants were proprietors or partners of the firm, indicated that the malafide intention was primarily attributable to the main accused, Bharat Ramjilal Lodhiya and Amit Lodhiya. The Court found the applicants' case to be on a different footing from that of the main accused. The Court relied on the Apex Court's decision in "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-(2020) 5 SCC 1". The applicants were granted anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to several conditions including availability for interrogation, not tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission, and appearing before the trial court. Observations were made explicitly for the purpose of deciding the bail application and not to affect the trial.

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Shanti Lal Bhai Lodhiya and another applicant. The prosecution alleges that the applicants, in collusion with Bharat Ramjilal Lodhiya and Amit Lodhiya, defrauded the first informant of 1 kg of gold and Rs. 7,50,000/- for ornament manufacturing on October 14, 2019. The amount was transferred via RTGS to the account of M/s Radhay Jewellers in Gujarat. The applicants claim innocence, stating they are falsely implicated due to their relationship with the main accused and have no connection to the firm, which is a proprietorship of Bharat Ramjilal Lodhiya. They highlighted that the GST number mentioned Bharat Ramjilal Lodhiya's name and that they reside in Gujarat. The prosecution opposed the bail, asserting the applicants are brothers of the main accused and hand in glove with them, and noted the GST number was cancelled from its inception. The court considered the cancellation of the GST number prior to the alleged offense.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's arguments: The applicants are innocent and falsely implicated due to their relationship with the main accused. They have no connection to the firm M/s Radhay Jewellers, which is a proprietorship of Bharat Ramjilal Lodhiya. The GST number associated with the firm lists Bharat Ramjilal Lodhiya's name, not the applicants'. The applicants reside in Gujarat and have no criminal history. They are cooperating with the investigation. Revenue/State's arguments: The applicants are real brothers of the co-accused and are involved in the offense. The GST number of the firm was cancelled from its inception, indicating an intention to defraud. The learned Additional Government Advocate did not dispute the applicants' lack of criminal history.