Court No. - 75 v. State of U.P

Judgment

1. This bunch of bail applications arises out of three first information reports, which are: (i) FIR /Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, dated 04.05.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar (ii) FIR/Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, dated 01.06.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gataum Buddh Nagar, and (iii) FIR/Case Crime No. 255 of 2023, dated 08.06.203, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, Noida Sector-20, District Gataum Buddh Nagar.

2. For ready reference, it would be appropriate to refer the details of bail applications preferred by the applicants under relevant sections, detailing case crime numbers, police stations and districts in the form of a chart, which are being summarized as under: Sl. No. Bail Application No. Applicant’s Name Case Crime No. Under Sections Police Station District

7. 53010/2023 Rajiv Jindal 52966/2023 Rajiv Jindal 53475/2023 Rajiv Jindal 55125/2023 Manan Singhal 55131/2023 Manan Singhal 51907/2023 Mahesh 51920/2023 Mahesh 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 3

9. 52254/2023 Mahesh 53246/2023 Nand Kishore 203/2023

10. 50362/2023 Nand Kishore 248/2023

11. 50510/2023 Nand Kishore 255/2023 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

12. 55268/2023 Manan Singhal 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

13. 55161/2023 Sumit Garg @ Chacha

14. 55235/2023 Sumit Garg @ Chacha 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

15. 55245/2023 Sumit Garg @ Chacha

16. 6728/2024 Dolsy Murjhani

17. 8746/2024 Dolsy Murjhani

18. 9061/2024 Dolsy Murjhani

19. 10526/2024 Jatin Murjani 203/2023

20. 10527/2024 Jatin Murjani 248/2023

21. 10528/2024 Jatin Murjani 255/2023 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

22. 6882/2024 Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Singhal 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

23. 5007/2024 Amit @ Moti @ Motu

24. 50753/2023 Akash Saini

25. 10603/2024 Akash Saini

26. 8643/2024 Akash Saini

27. 11406/2024 Ajay Mintu

28. 11452/2024 Ajay Mintu

29. 11581/2024 Ajay Mintu @ @ @ 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 4

30. 50337/2023 Vishal

31. 2994/2024 Vishal

32. 2742/2024 Vishal 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

33. 525/2024 Praveen Kumar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

34. 561/2024 Praveen Kumar

35. 56396/2023 Praveen Kumar

36. 8136/2024 Piyush Kumar Gupta

37. 52956/2023 Ashwani

38. 53087/2023 Ashwani

39. 53088/2023 Ashwani

40. 18705/2024 Atul Gupta

41. 12687/2024 Pritam Garg @ Chacha

42. 13150/2024 Pritam Garg @ Chacha

43. 13386/2024 Pritam Garg @ Chacha

44. 16146/2024 Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Singhal

45. 16288/2024 Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Singhal

46. 16413/2024 Atul Gupta

47. 16981/2024 Amit @ Moti @ Motu

48. 16999/2024 Amit @ Moti @ Motu

49. 17749/2024 Rakesh Dialani

50. 17802/2024 Rakesh Dialani

51. 17809/2024 Rakesh Dialani 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 5

52. 18616/2024 Atul Gupta

53. 19304/2024 Dilip Sharma 203/2023 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

54. 26838/2024 Piyush Kumar Gupta

55. 26942/2024 Piyush Kumar Gupta 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC Noida Sector-20 Gataum Buddh Nagar

As per prosecution version in FIR/Case Crime No. 203/2023, dated 04.05.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gataum Buddh Nagar, the informant Saurabh Dwivedi is a journalist and works as an Editor of the Lallantop internet news portal and India Today Hindi Magazine. He came across two GST registrations viz. 03AUSPD7067N1Z3 and 27AUSPD7067N1ZT obtained in the State of Punjab and Maharashtra respectively w.e.f.

20.03.2023. These have been applied on informant’s PAN AUSPD7067N (Exhibit 1) and bear his name, Saurabh Dwivedi as legal name of the business entity. The details of both the registrations obtained from GST portal are enclosed as Exhibit 2 to the complaint. The registered address mentioned for the given two registrations are as under – (a) 03AUSPD7067N1Z3 having registered address as 787, Ground Floor, Railway Office, ATI Road, Ludhiana, Punjab, 141008, (b) 27AUSPD7067N1ZT having registered address as 172, Sau Alakatal Uttamrao Nikalaje Path, Solapur, Solapur, Maharashtra,

413003. These have not been obtained with his consensus and he is totally unaware of the person who applied for these registrations and whose contact details are updated in these GST registrations. It is also mentioned that the two registrations are already authenticated for Aadhaar verification whereas as on date no email ID and mobile number is linked with his Aadhaar. Copy of Aadhaar Card along with screenshot showing the absence of any email ID or mobile number in 6 Aadhaar details is enclosed as Exhibit. Further it has been learnt that similar registration has been applied in the UT of Delhi, however, the same got rejected by the GST authorities. The acknowledgement number generated after filing of GST registration application is AA070323054161Q. Hence, the FIR has been lodged.

4. As per prosecution version in FIR/Case Crime No. 248/2023, dated 01.06.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gataum Buddh Nagar, the informant – Sumit Yadav came to know about registration of fake firm, Yadav Traders, against his PAN Card No. AHFPX9874Q and the address is recorded as Ground Floor JL No. 219 Khatian No. 2275 dag no. 1835, Sahibganj Road, near Sahibganj, High School, Kharimala, Khagrabari Cooch behar West Bengal – 736101. Said Firm is got registered fallaciously against informant’s PAN Card AHFPX9874Q. It has been registered illegally by some unknown miscreants. Informant has mentioned his permanent address as K-11 Gyan Sarowar Colony, Ramghat Road, Aligarh, and present address as J-41, Senior Citizen Society, Greater Noida. Thus, the FIR has been lodged.

5. As per prosecution version in FIR/Case Crime No. 255/2023, dated 08.06.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gataum Buddh Nagar, the informant - Arvind Kumar Yadav, on being known about arrest of some persons who illegally got GST registration using PAN Card of the persons, checked on GSTSEARCH.in and found that three fake GST Numbers detailed in the FIR bearing: (1) GST No. 24ABBP43323J12N, (2) GST No. 24ABBPY43323J2ZM and (3) GST No. 06ABBPY3323J12L have been obtained by someone, whereas he or his family member never obtained any GST Number and has no concern with the firms. He has stated that his documents have been misused. Hence, the FIR has been lodged. 7

6. The applicants have preferred bail applications in respective First Information Reports/ Case Crime Numbers, details whereof according to case crime number, are being enumerated in following chart: (i) Bail Applications in FIR/Case Crime No. 203 of 2023 : , dated 04.05.2023 Sl. No. Bail Application No. Applicant’s Name

19. Rajiv Jindal Pritam Garg @ Chacha Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Singhal Amit @ Moti @ Motu Rakesh Dialani Dilip Sharma Atul Gupta Manan Singhal Sumit Garg @ Chacha Praveen Kumar Piyush Kumar Gupta Ashwani Vishal Akash Saini Ajay @ Mintu Jatin Murjani Mahesh Nand Kishore Dolsy Murjhani (ii) Bail Applications in FIR/Case Crime No.248/2023 : , dated 01.06.2023 Sl. No. Bail Application No. Applicant’s Name

9. Rajiv Jindal Pritam Garg @ Chacha Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Singhal Atul Gupta Rakesh Dialani Manan Singhal Sumit Garg @ Chacha Praveen Kumar Ashwani

10. Amit @ Moti @ Motu 8

18. Vishal Akash Saini Ajay @ Mintu Dolsy Murjhani Jatin Murjani Mahesh Nand Kishore Piyush Kumar Gupta : (iii) Bail Applications in FIR/Case Crime No.255/2023, dated 08.06.2023 Sl. No. Bail Application No. Applicant’s Name

18. Pritam Garg @ Chacha Amit @ Moti @ Motu Rakesh Dialani Atul Gupta Manan Singhal Sumit Garg @ Chacha Praveen Kumar Ashwani Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav Singhal Vishal Akash Saini Ajay @ Mintu Dolsy Murjhani Jatin Murjani Rajiv Jindal Mahesh Nand Kishore Piyush Kumar Gupta

7. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant submits that instant bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51920 of 2023 has been preferred by the applicant – Mahesh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 255 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 9

8. As per prosecution story the informant on being searched on internet found that three fictitious firms have been formed with his PAN and three GST Numbers have been obtained, whereas the applicant neither got any such firm opened nor obtained any GST Number, thus he prayed for legal action against the accused who have manipulated and misused his documents and lodged the first information report on 08.06.2023.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not named in first information report1. Placing forth the facts, learned counsel next submits that on 07.07.2023 when the applicant came back from Delhi after appearing in a competitive examination of IELTS, he along with his brother (deponent) were quizzed and exerted pressure to produce their father, however, on being asked the reason, the applicant was challaned on 09.07.2023.

10. To show the fair background of the applicant, it is stated that the applicant is a student of K.R. Mangalam University, Gurugram, State of Haryana, he is aged about 20 years and is a meritorious student. However, due to arrest he has missed his one semester. In paragraph-15 of the application, the applicant has averred that he is a heart patient and his bypass surgery has been done, for the said purpose he has been undergoing medical treatment at Narayan Hrudayalaya Super Speciality Clinic & Diagnostic Centre, Bangalore.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no evidence in the entire case diary against the applicant as nothing has been recovered from him to prove the offence against him. However, the chargesheet has been submitted on 03.10.2023 only the basis of alleged circumstantial evidence. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that prima face if no offence is made out against the applicant, he 1 FIR 10 should not ordinarily be apprehended. Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The basic rule is to release him on bail unless there are circumstances suggesting the possibility of his fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the complainant is resident of New Delhi whereas he has filed first information report in Gautam Buddh Nagar without there being any reason as to why the applicant came to Noida to lodge the FIR. He raises question over the genuineness of the complaint stating that the territorial jurisdiction is decided on the basis of place of occurrence. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2. Paragraph Nos. 24, 36 & 38 of the said judgement are quoted as under: “24. The falsehood in the complaint, filed with reference to the addresses of the accused, was established at the time of filing of charge-sheet. Whereas in the FIR, the addresses of all the accused given were incomplete merely mentioning the address as ‘Sector 20, Gautam Budh Nagar’, in the charge-sheet addresses of not only the appellants, namely, Rajesh Gupta and Dinesh Gupta, were found to be ‘D-393, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, even Sushil Gupta and Baljeet Singh were also found to be residents of New Delhi. … *** *** *** *** *** ***

36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the FIR in question, if proceeded further, will result in absolute abuse of process of court. It is a clear case of malicious prosecution. Hence, the same is required to be quashed. *** *** *** *** *** ***

38. Before parting with the judgment, we are reminded of the opening remarks. The respondent Karan Gambhir having misused the legal system by lodging false and frivolous complaint with non- disclosure of necessary facts must bear its costs. The registration of FIR at Noida despite having registered offices of companies in 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 34 11 question at Delhi shows a wishful forum shopping by the Complainant, casting serious doubts on their bona fides. The Complainant had already sought remedy against amalgamation order before the High Court and the High Court had dismissed the same. However, Complainant chose to again use judicial mechanisms to raise his grievances. A criminal complaint was filed and FIR was registered against appellants despite the commercial nature of dispute. Such ill intended acts of abuse of power and of legal machinery seriously affect the public trust in judicial functioning. Thus, we find ourselves constrained to impose cost on Complainant with a view to curb others from such acts leading to abuse of judicial remedies.”

13. It is also contended that neither FIR has been lodged at the concerned police station nor investigation has been done by it, thus, it is a malicious prosecution. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has referred two judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and another3. Relevant Paragraph Nos. 27 & 28 of the said judgement are thus: “27. The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the incident. In the instant case, the suicide was committed at Ambala. Ambala Police closed the case after fulfilling the requirements of Section 174 of the Code holding that there was no foul play in the incident and also there was no requirement of lodging FIR under Section 154 as none of the family members of the deceased raised any suspicion over the death even though the death was committed within seven years of marriage. Also, there is no evidence of it being a continuing offence. Hence, the offence alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Durg. Prima facie, none of the ingredients constituting the offence can be said to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of that Court.

28. In the case on hand, as per the materials on record, in Crime No. 194 of 2005, charge-sheet has been filed and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has taken cognizance of the proceedings. In the present fact situation, we are of the considered opinion that the court at Durg has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction since the entire cause of action for the alleged offence had purportedly arisen in the city of Ambala.” 3 (2016) 9 SCC 1 12

14. He further contends that no recovery has been made from the applicant’s possession and the alleged recovery is fake and it does not make any case against the applicant.

15. Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel argued on behalf of the applicant – Rajiv Jindal in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 53010 of 2023, 53475 of 2023, 52966 of 2023; applicant – Mahesh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 51907 of 2023, 51920 of 2023, 52254 of 2023, and applicant-Nand Kishore in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 53246 of 2023, 50362 of 2023 and 50510 of 2023.

16. Placing reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Haricharan Kurmi and another v. State of Bihar4, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Paragraph-13 and argued that it has been held in the said judgement that Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18725 provides that the court may take confession into consideration and thereby no doubt, makes it evidence on which the court may act; but the section does not say that the confession amounts to proof. Relevant excerpt of Paragraph-13 of said judgement is quoted herein below: “13. … Section 30, however, provides that the court may take the confession into consideration and thereby, no doubt, makes it evidence on which the court may act; but the section does not say that the confession is to amount to proof. Clearly there must be other evidence. The confession is only one element in the consideration of all the facts proved the case; it can be put into the scale and weighed with the other evidence”. It would be noticed that as a result of the provisions contained in Section 30, the confession has no doubt to be regarded as amounting to evidence in a general way, because whatever is considered by the court is evidence; circumstances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of Section 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by Section 3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence 4 AIR 1964 SC 1184 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 28 5 The Act, 1872 13 adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. ...”

17. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued that with respect to grant of bail the applicants cannot tamper any evidence and a case of bail is made in their favour as nothing, even prima facie, is available on record which may require the applicant to be apprehended, as also it is a settled law that the bail is rule and jail is exception.

18. Placing the three first information reports bearing Case Crime Nos. 203 of 2023, 248 of 2023 and 255 of 2023, lodged by Saurabh Dwivedi, Sumit Yadav and Arvind Kumar Yadav, respectively, learned counsel for the applicants submits that neither the permanent addresses of the informants are shown, nor the alleged forged firms registered on the PAN Card and Aadhaar Card is within the limits of State of U.P., therefore, the registration of proceedings in the State of U.P. is without jurisdiction and the investigation so conducted by the officers is also without jurisdiction and is in teeth of Section 177 Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgements of Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Gupta v. State of U.P.6, Manoj Kumar Sharma & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & another7, and Y Abraham Ajith & others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & another8.

19. The entire investigation started from an input by a secret informer and then on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons, the name of other co-accused persons came into light, thus, the implication of the applicants on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused cannot be taken as a substantial piece of evidence. In 6 7 8