Manoj Kumar Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on considering the submissions of both parties, the nature of the accusations, and all attending facts and circumstances. The Court found that the allegations involving the entrustment of 29.778 kg of silver and the subsequent failure to return it, which implies a question of recovery, were significant. The Court concluded that, in light of these factors, the applicant was not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The operative direction was the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

Facts

The applicant, Manoj Kumar Verma, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 409, 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the complainant entrusted 29.778 kg of silver to the applicant for making jewellery, which the applicant failed to return, constituting a breach of trust. The applicant contended that the dispute was civil in nature, related to a shop tenancy, and that the allegations of entrusted silver were false. He claimed to have returned a sum of Rs. 12,89,000/- to the complainant and accused the complainant of creating a forged rent agreement. The applicant stated he runs a jewellery business and has a GST number, and that he has filed complaints against the complainant. He assured cooperation with the investigation and trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of breach of trust and potential recovery of entrusted goods? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent, there is no credible evidence against him, and no coercive process has been issued. He asserted that the dispute is purely civil, concerning a shop tenancy, and the allegations of entrusted silver are false. He claimed to have repaid a loan and accused the complainant of forging documents. He stated he runs a jewellery business with a GST number and has made complaints against the complainant. He undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State opposed the application, arguing that the allegations involve the entrustment of a significant quantity of silver, and the question of recovery is involved, necessitating custodial interrogation of the applicant.