High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Atul Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Kesari,Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyendra Kumar Tripathi,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Kunwar Vikram Suryavansh, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Atul Pratap Singh seeking bail in Case Crime No.426 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Sector-63, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, who was interested in some construction projects carried on at Noida, visited the site of PKS Builders, where the present accused- applicant and co-accused Yatin Narang met and explained the whole project of the company and other relevant details to him. Other co-accused Gaurav Singh also met there and for the sake of business Manish Gupta, Manoj Upadhaya and Tapan Pandey were also contacted. It was agreed upon between the parties that the value of the total six units would be Rs.6.5 crores, out of which, 10% amount was to be paid at the time of booking, 10% within next 90 days, 40% on completion of the building structure and rest 40% was to be paid finally at the time of taking possession. The informant anyhow managed Rs.45 lakhs, out of which, Rs.20 lakhs were paid by two cheques valuing Rs.10 lakhs each and Rs.25 lakhs in cash and the said cheques and cash amount were received by the present accused Atul Pratap Singh and co-accused Gaurav Singh and Ms. Bharti (account head) jointly and then the said money was handed over to Manish Gupta, the owner of the company. After clearance of cheque receipt was also issued by the company on 09.11.2021 and all the aforesaid proceedings took place in the site office of the company PKS Builders. However, for the payment of amount of Rs.20 lakhs, the company insisted and thereupon, the present accused-applicant along with co-accused Deepti Sharma came to Dehradun where the informant paid Rs. 20 lakhs cash to them and the receipt of the said amount was also acknowledged by them and also on telephone by co-accused Gaurav Singh and Yatin Narang. It is also further alleged that another commercial spaces GD 6, 7, 8 were also agreed upon to be taken by the informant on the request of the present accused and the transaction was settled for Rs.3,31,24000/- which was approved on phone by co-accused Gaurav Singh and Manish Gupta and in this respect, cheques of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.35 lakhs cash were received by the present accused applicant which was deposited in the company and the receipt thereof was also given. It is further alleged that a total Rs.1.3 crores through cheque and cash was paid by the informant to the company, out of which, the company admitted the payment made by cheques but out of the total cash amount, Rs.80 lakhs, receiving of Rs.56 lakhs was denied by the company and in this way, all the accused-applicants including the present one have made wrongful gain by fraudulently taking huge money from the informant in criminal conspiracy with each other in the commission of the aforesaid crime; forged and fabricated receipts were procured and even in the booking form of commercial space, some alteration was made and thereby forgery was committed with the informant of the case.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to FIR version the informant allegedly received knowledge with regard to the incident in the month of January, 2022 and FIR was lodged on 15.10.2022 after more than nine months, which is highly belated and creates a suspicion towards credibility of prosecution version.

5. As the applicant was appointed as a General Manager (Sales) in M/s Propshop Company, G-200 Sector 63, Gautam Budh Nagar. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Himanshu Khanna i.e. the owner of M/s Propshop under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.01.2023, wherein he has made allegations against the applicant, whereas owner of the Company has also been named as accused in the FIR. The applicant was appointed in M/s Propshop Company established in 2021 and at that time proprietor of Firm was Amitesh Pandey. This firm is engaged in sale of properties. That on 14.10.2021 Smt. Garima had called the applicant for investing money in the property and the applicant as employee of Firm gave details of projects of M/s PKS Bilduer Projects and also sent details on her whatsapp number. Subsequently on 10.10.2021 Manoj, Tapan and Prashant Kumar came to visit Gautam Budh Nagar with a view to purchase the property constructed by PKS Builder Project, and on 27.10.2021 the finalized six shops bearing Shops No.GD4, GD5, GD6,GD7,GD37 and GD38 situated at M/s PKS Town Central, Sector 16-B, Greater Noida (West), Gautam Budh Nagar. The proposed purchasers had given advance to Amitesh Pandey, proprietor of M/s M/s Propshop Company and subsequently from time to time payment was being done to M/s M/s Propshop Company in relation to purchase of shops constructed by M/s PKS Project.

6. On 07.01.2022 at about 02:00 pm, Yatin Narang, Gaurav and Dinesh Pandey informed the applicant that six shops booked by Prashant Kumar (informant and others) has been cancelled and they have took pressure upon the applicant to accept receiving of money and give assurance to the applicant that half of the receiving amount will be given to the applicant. The applicant denied the proposal given by those people, whereupon they became enraged and assaulted him and beaten him in the bathroom and snatched Rs.3,25,000/- from his pocket, which he had received from a customer as advance for booking of shops. The applicant filed an e-FIR in connection with this incident.

7. He further submitted that Amitesh Pandey the proprietor of M/s Propshop Company moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar against the applicant for lodging an FIR against him in respect of money received from the present informant, Prashant Kumar, R/o Dehradoon (Uttaraakhand) only to save his skin an FIR was lodged against the applicant vide Case Crime No.267 of 2023, under Section 406, 420, IPC, at P.S. Sector 63, Gautam Budh Nagar on 10.06.2023 by orders of the court. This is alleged therein that the accused applicant was had embezzled Rs.56 lakh obtained from customer Prashant Kumar and did not deposit the same either with PKS builder or M/s M/s Propshop Company. Subsequently the case was altered into Sections 408,420, 467, 468, 471 IPC being Case Crime No.267 of 2023. The accused applicant has been enlarged on bail by order of Session Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 31.07.2023 in said criminal case. Thus, applicant has been enlarged on bail by order of court below in a case with regard to same amount involved and attributed to the applicant in present cases.

8. He next submitted that apart from these two cases which are interconnected with each other another case was registered against the applicant vide FIR/ Case Crime No.501 of 2022 at P.S. Kalkaji, New Delhi under Sections 420/34 IPC, wherein he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Learned MM-06, South East, Room No.509, 5th Floor Saket Court, New Delhi.

9. He further submitted that the accused applicant is held in jail custody since 17.05.2023 i.e. for around two years and the chargesheet has been filed wrongly against the accused applicant only by the police, in the said offence as police is under influence of co-accused persons. However, even charge has not been framed against the accused applicant till 20.04.2025 and trial is likely to be concluded in near future. His statement has already been recorded .

10. He lastly submitted that no recovery of money has been effected from the applicant, after his surrender before the court, after dismissal of his anticipatory bail application. There is no allegation that accused applicant has received money from the informant in his bank account. There is no specific allegation in FIR that any money was specifically given in cash to the applicant. In fact, entire amount collected by the applicant as employee of firm has been deposited in the office of company. The offence is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant under takes to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if he is enlarged on bail by order of this Court.

11. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is contended on behalf of the informant that on false representation given by the accused applicant including present applicant, the informant paid Rs.1,03,00,000/- through cheque and cash to Company PKS builder, in lieu of purchasing six units for Rs.6.5 cr. was agreed as total sale consideration.

12. The accused applicant embezzled Rs.56 lakh out of cash given by the informant and did not deposit the same in the account of Company. The applicant, his family members made false and fabricated receipts to mislead the informant, as it was under developed project and construction was still going on. The payment was required to be made in piecemeal and even Company collected some amount from the informant by sending its employees to Dehradoon where informant resides. It is also submitted that anticipatory bail application of the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed vide order of this Court dated 26.04.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench.

13. The accused/applicant is held in jail custody for around two years in the present case. The offence is triable by a Magistrate and trial is yet to commence and conclusion of trial cannot be foreseen in near future. The accused applicant has already been granted bail by court of session, District Gautam Budh Nagar in respect of same subject matter i.e. amount Rs.56 lakh in a separate FIR lodged at the instance of his employer company. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant in the present case was dismissed two years ago and parameters of regular and anticipatory bail are distinguishable. No useful purpose of law is likely to be served in keeping the applicant in incarceration for a indefinite period. No custodian interrogation is required at present.

14. Therefore, considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of foregoing discussion, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

15. Let the accused/applicant, Atul Pratap Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No.426 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Sector-63, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned, subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Atul Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Kesari,Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyendra Kumar Tripathi,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Kunwar Vikram Suryavansh, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Atul Pratap Singh seeking bail in Case Crime No.426 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Sector-63, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, who was interested in some construction projects carried on at Noida, visited the site of PKS Builders, where the present accused- applicant and co-accused Yatin Narang met and explained the whole project of the company and other relevant details to him. Other co-accused Gaurav Singh also met there and for the sake of business Manish Gupta, Manoj Upadhaya and Tapan Pandey were also contacted. It was agreed upon between the parties that the value of the total six units would be Rs.6.5 crores, out of which, 10% amount was to be paid at the time of booking, 10% within next 90 days, 40% on completion of the building structure and rest 40% was to be paid finally at the time of taking possession. The informant anyhow managed Rs.45 lakhs, out of which, Rs.20 lakhs were paid by two cheques valuing Rs.10 lakhs each and Rs.25 lakhs in cash and the said cheques and cash amount were received by the present accused Atul Pratap Singh and co-accused Gaurav Singh and Ms. Bharti (account head) jointly and then the said money was handed over to Manish Gupta, the owner of the company. After clearance of cheque receipt was also issued by the company on 09.11.2021 and all the aforesaid proceedings took place in the site office of the company PKS Builders. However, for the payment of amount of Rs.20 lakhs, the company insisted and thereupon, the present accused-applicant along with co-accused Deepti Sharma came to Dehradun where the informant paid Rs. 20 lakhs cash to them and the receipt of the said amount was also acknowledged by them and also on telephone by co-accused Gaurav Singh and Yatin Narang. It is also further alleged that another commercial spaces GD 6, 7, 8 were also agreed upon to be taken by the informant on the request of the present accused and the transaction was settled for Rs.3,31,24000/- which was approved on phone by co-accused Gaurav Singh and Manish Gupta and in this respect, cheques of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.35 lakhs cash were received by the present accused applicant which was deposited in the company and the receipt thereof was also given. It is further alleged that a total Rs.1.3 crores through cheque and cash was paid by the informant to the company, out of which, the company admitted the payment made by cheques but out of the total cash amount, Rs.80 lakhs, receiving of Rs.56 lakhs was denied by the company and in this way, all the accused-applicants including the present one have made wrongful gain by fraudulently taking huge money from the informant in criminal conspiracy with each other in the commission of the aforesaid crime; forged and fabricated receipts were procured and even in the booking form of commercial space, some alteration was made and thereby forgery was committed with the informant of the case.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to FIR version the informant allegedly received knowledge with regard to the incident in the month of January, 2022 and FIR was lodged on 15.10.2022 after more than nine months, which is highly belated and creates a suspicion towards credibility of prosecution version.

5. As the applicant was appointed as a General Manager (Sales) in M/s Propshop Company, G-200 Sector 63, Gautam Budh Nagar. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Himanshu Khanna i.e. the owner of M/s Propshop under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.01.2023, wherein he has made allegations against the applicant, whereas owner of the Company has also been named as accused in the FIR. The applicant was appointed in M/s Propshop Company established in 2021 and at that time proprietor of Firm was Amitesh Pandey. This firm is engaged in sale of properties. That on 14.10.2021 Smt. Garima had called the applicant for investing money in the property and the applicant as employee of Firm gave details of projects of M/s PKS Bilduer Projects and also sent details on her whatsapp number. Subsequently on 10.10.2021 Manoj, Tapan and Prashant Kumar came to visit Gautam Budh Nagar with a view to purchase the property constructed by PKS Builder Project, and on 27.10.2021 the finalized six shops bearing Shops No.GD4, GD5, GD6,GD7,GD37 and GD38 situated at M/s PKS Town Central, Sector 16-B, Greater Noida (West), Gautam Budh Nagar. The proposed purchasers had given advance to Amitesh Pandey, proprietor of M/s M/s Propshop Company and subsequently from time to time payment was being done to M/s M/s Propshop Company in relation to purchase of shops constructed by M/s PKS Project.

6. On 07.01.2022 at about 02:00 pm, Yatin Narang, Gaurav and Dinesh Pandey informed the applicant that six shops booked by Prashant Kumar (informant and others) has been cancelled and they have took pressure upon the applicant to accept receiving of money and give assurance to the applicant that half of the receiving amount will be given to the applicant. The applicant denied the proposal given by those people, whereupon they became enraged and assaulted him and beaten him in the bathroom and snatched Rs.3,25,000/- from his pocket, which he had received from a customer as advance for booking of shops. The applicant filed an e-FIR in connection with this incident.

7. He further submitted that Amitesh Pandey the proprietor of M/s Propshop Company moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar against the applicant for lodging an FIR against him in respect of money received from the present informant, Prashant Kumar, R/o Dehradoon (Uttaraakhand) only to save his skin an FIR was lodged against the applicant vide Case Crime No.267 of 2023, under Section 406, 420, IPC, at P.S. Sector 63, Gautam Budh Nagar on 10.06.2023 by orders of the court. This is alleged therein that the accused applicant was had embezzled Rs.56 lakh obtained from customer Prashant Kumar and did not deposit the same either with PKS builder or M/s M/s Propshop Company. Subsequently the case was altered into Sections 408,420, 467, 468, 471 IPC being Case Crime No.267 of 2023. The accused applicant has been enlarged on bail by order of Session Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 31.07.2023 in said criminal case. Thus, applicant has been enlarged on bail by order of court below in a case with regard to same amount involved and attributed to the applicant in present cases.

8. He next submitted that apart from these two cases which are interconnected with each other another case was registered against the applicant vide FIR/ Case Crime No.501 of 2022 at P.S. Kalkaji, New Delhi under Sections 420/34 IPC, wherein he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.04.2024 passed by Learned MM-06, South East, Room No.509, 5th Floor Saket Court, New Delhi.

9. He further submitted that the accused applicant is held in jail custody since 17.05.2023 i.e. for around two years and the chargesheet has been filed wrongly against the accused applicant only by the police, in the said offence as police is under influence of co-accused persons. However, even charge has not been framed against the accused applicant till 20.04.2025 and trial is likely to be concluded in near future. His statement has already been recorded .

10. He lastly submitted that no recovery of money has been effected from the applicant, after his surrender before the court, after dismissal of his anticipatory bail application. There is no allegation that accused applicant has received money from the informant in his bank account. There is no specific allegation in FIR that any money was specifically given in cash to the applicant. In fact, entire amount collected by the applicant as employee of firm has been deposited in the office of company. The offence is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant under takes to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if he is enlarged on bail by order of this Court.

11. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is contended on behalf of the informant that on false representation given by the accused applicant including present applicant, the informant paid Rs.1,03,00,000/- through cheque and cash to Company PKS builder, in lieu of purchasing six units for Rs.6.5 cr. was agreed as total sale consideration.

12. The accused applicant embezzled Rs.56 lakh out of cash given by the informant and did not deposit the same in the account of Company. The applicant, his family members made false and fabricated receipts to mislead the informant, as it was under developed project and construction was still going on. The payment was required to be made in piecemeal and even Company collected some amount from the informant by sending its employees to Dehradoon where informant resides. It is also submitted that anticipatory bail application of the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed vide order of this Court dated 26.04.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench.

13. The accused/applicant is held in jail custody for around two years in the present case. The offence is triable by a Magistrate and trial is yet to commence and conclusion of trial cannot be foreseen in near future. The accused applicant has already been granted bail by court of session, District Gautam Budh Nagar in respect of same subject matter i.e. amount Rs.56 lakh in a separate FIR lodged at the instance of his employer company. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant in the present case was dismissed two years ago and parameters of regular and anticipatory bail are distinguishable. No useful purpose of law is likely to be served in keeping the applicant in incarceration for a indefinite period. No custodian interrogation is required at present.

14. Therefore, considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of foregoing discussion, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

15. Let the accused/applicant, Atul Pratap Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No.426 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Sector-63, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned, subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad