High Court

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC./482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 0086 of 2021, under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC P.S.- Ghazipur District - Lucknow. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 5.11.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- “At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to implead the complainant as a party in the array of the opposite parties, during course of the day. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submission aforesaid. In view of the above, the counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the complainant as opposite party no. 5, in the array of opposite parties. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0086 of 2021, under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC P.S.- Ghazipur District - Lucknow. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is erstwhile Director of the company which was running a master franchise and subsequently, he resigned on 01.07.2019 though, on 31.5.2019, an agreement was executed in between the Company and the complainant and when the applicant resigned from the company, the supplementary agreements were also executed on 29.08.2019 and 14.03.2020. He added that infact the matter is civil in nature and an arbitration proceedings are also instituted by the complainant, which is still running and the applicant as well as the complainant are appearing before the arbitrators. He submits that for giving the colour of criminality to the present matter, the first information report was lodged. He added that the applicant will always be available before the Investigation Agency and he will never abscond from the same. He further submits the applicant will cooperate with the trial proceedings and submitted that there is acute apprehension that police will arrest the applicant thus, submission is that he may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committed offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Karanraj Tanna @ Karanraj Jayendrabhai Tanna shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 5, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in second week of December, 2024. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 5 may file their counter affidavits.” State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Karanraj Tanna @ Karanraj Jayendrabhai Tanna till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Shravan

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC./482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 0086 of 2021, under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC P.S.- Ghazipur District - Lucknow. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 5.11.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- “At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to implead the complainant as a party in the array of the opposite parties, during course of the day. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submission aforesaid. In view of the above, the counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the complainant as opposite party no. 5, in the array of opposite parties. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0086 of 2021, under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC P.S.- Ghazipur District - Lucknow. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is erstwhile Director of the company which was running a master franchise and subsequently, he resigned on 01.07.2019 though, on 31.5.2019, an agreement was executed in between the Company and the complainant and when the applicant resigned from the company, the supplementary agreements were also executed on 29.08.2019 and 14.03.2020. He added that infact the matter is civil in nature and an arbitration proceedings are also instituted by the complainant, which is still running and the applicant as well as the complainant are appearing before the arbitrators. He submits that for giving the colour of criminality to the present matter, the first information report was lodged. He added that the applicant will always be available before the Investigation Agency and he will never abscond from the same. He further submits the applicant will cooperate with the trial proceedings and submitted that there is acute apprehension that police will arrest the applicant thus, submission is that he may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committed offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Karanraj Tanna @ Karanraj Jayendrabhai Tanna shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 5, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in second week of December, 2024. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 5 may file their counter affidavits.” State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Karanraj Tanna @ Karanraj Jayendrabhai Tanna till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Shravan