State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

3. A first information report dated 14.06.2025 was lodged against the Manager Moda Cocktail Company as well as its other company, Sharad Gupta (applicant) and Sangeeta Gupta for committing criminal breach of trust, cheating, misappropriate of funds, money laundering and undertaking sham transactions, which have resulted in wrongly loss of crores rupees to the firm M/s Moda Cocktail, its erstwhile partner Rajinder Gupta and to the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant and accused persons are family members, they were running a business, which named as M/s Moda Cocktail which was initially a sole proprietorship vested in Ms. Ritu Gupta. The firm was engaged in export of garments and hosiery goods. The sole proprietorship was converted into partnership firm on 22.06.2001, in which, Ritu Gupta, her son, Deepak Gupta (present informant), Sharad Gupta, Sangeet Gupta and Satish Gupta were made partners through supplementary deed dated 01.01.2017 and 02.12.2019, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-8 and 9 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The father of the informant, namely, Rajendra Gupta was also made partner, who subsequently inherited the share of his wife, Ritu Gupta after her death in 2019. The majority of the partnership shares were with 2 BAIL No. 28145 of 2025 Sharad Gupta (applicant) and co-accused Sangeeta Gupta and rest of the shares were with the informant, and his father. The memorandum of family settlement on 26.01.2023 stipulated that partners, namely, Rejendra Gupta and Deepak Gupta would retire for which, he compensated with 17 crore rupees and to that end 8.5 crore rupees was paid to Rajendra Gupta on 27.01.2023 and this fact is apparent from Arbitral award. However, dispute arose that estimation of Rs.17 crores was undervalued and all the joint family property was not comprised therein. In order to resolve the dispute, applicant along with his brother, Sharad Gupta (applicant) approached Hon'ble High Court to appoint Arbitrator, under Section 9 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act to resolve the issue. The arbitration was conducted before learned Arbitration Tribunal before the arbitrator and arbitration proceedings was concluded on 25.04.2025 with issuance of arbitral award. In the proceedings before the arbitrator, applicant and his brother were claimants and informant, his father and Canara Bank were respondents. Learned counsel further argued that series of criminal prosecution has been launched against the applicant and his family members in which, either the applicant or his family members get relief from the Court of law, another prosecution has been launched only to harass the applicant. Learned counsel also argued that earlier a F.I.R., in Case Crime No. 434 of 2024 under Sections 61(2), 3(5), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 336(3), 340 (2), 338 of B.N.S. and Section 66, 66B, 66C, 43 and 84 B of Information Technology Act was lodged at Police Station Ecotech-III, District Gautambudh Nagar, in which the co-accused Sangeeta Gupta has already been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.05.2025, copy of which order is at page no. 451 of the paper book. Learned counsel further argued that Sangeeta Gupta is the wife of the applicant and when she has been enlarged on bail, the informant in order to cause harm and harassment, lodged the F.I.R. of the present case on 14.06.2025 on more or less similar set of allegations as contained in Case Crime No. 434 of 2024. He further submits that it is a business dispute amongst the family members, which has been given shape of criminal prosecution of the applicant at the behest of the informant. He thus submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is 3 BAIL No. 28145 of 2025 languishing in jail since 18.06.2025.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.Learned counsel for the informant further argued that the applicant and the informant are cousin and the applicant along with the co-accused Sangeeta Gupta have committed cheating forgery for wrongful gain. He further submits that the instant matter pertains to P.P.kit kept in the store without informing the informant and the G.S.T. raid was also conducted, thereafter notice was given to the firm and the informant, which is pending consideration. Learned counsel also argued that the applicant and the co-accused committing one offence after another just for wrongful gain on account of which, the informant suffered huge loss as such it cannot be said the informant is initiating one proceeding after another. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that the applicant and the co-accused have committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, misappropriation of funds, money laundering and undertaking sham transactions, which have resulted in wrongly loss in crores to the firm M/s Moda Cocktail, its erstwhile partner Rajinder Gupta and to the informant and therefore the accused applicant is not entitled for bail.

6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, partnership dispute amongst the same family, MOU also shows that any dispute arose between the parties would be resolved through arbitration, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Let applicant Sharad Gupta involved in Case Crime No.348 of 2025 under Sections 417, 418, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Surajpur, District Gautambudh Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which 4 BAIL No. 28145 of 2025 the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the informant/trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

9. The bail application is allowed. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) September 25, 2025 S.Ali SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

3. A first information report dated 14.06.2025 was lodged against the Manager Moda Cocktail Company as well as its other company, Sharad Gupta (applicant) and Sangeeta Gupta for committing criminal breach of trust, cheating, misappropriate of funds, money laundering and undertaking sham transactions, which have resulted in wrongly loss of crores rupees to the firm M/s Moda Cocktail, its erstwhile partner Rajinder Gupta and to the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant and accused persons are family members, they were running a business, which named as M/s Moda Cocktail which was initially a sole proprietorship vested in Ms. Ritu Gupta. The firm was engaged in export of garments and hosiery goods. The sole proprietorship was converted into partnership firm on 22.06.2001, in which, Ritu Gupta, her son, Deepak Gupta (present informant), Sharad Gupta, Sangeet Gupta and Satish Gupta were made partners through supplementary deed dated 01.01.2017 and 02.12.2019, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-8 and 9 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The father of the informant, namely, Rajendra Gupta was also made partner, who subsequently inherited the share of his wife, Ritu Gupta after her death in 2019. The majority of the partnership shares were with 2 BAIL No. 28145 of 2025 Sharad Gupta (applicant) and co-accused Sangeeta Gupta and rest of the shares were with the informant, and his father. The memorandum of family settlement on 26.01.2023 stipulated that partners, namely, Rejendra Gupta and Deepak Gupta would retire for which, he compensated with 17 crore rupees and to that end 8.5 crore rupees was paid to Rajendra Gupta on 27.01.2023 and this fact is apparent from Arbitral award. However, dispute arose that estimation of Rs.17 crores was undervalued and all the joint family property was not comprised therein. In order to resolve the dispute, applicant along with his brother, Sharad Gupta (applicant) approached Hon'ble High Court to appoint Arbitrator, under Section 9 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act to resolve the issue. The arbitration was conducted before learned Arbitration Tribunal before the arbitrator and arbitration proceedings was concluded on 25.04.2025 with issuance of arbitral award. In the proceedings before the arbitrator, applicant and his brother were claimants and informant, his father and Canara Bank were respondents. Learned counsel further argued that series of criminal prosecution has been launched against the applicant and his family members in which, either the applicant or his family members get relief from the Court of law, another prosecution has been launched only to harass the applicant. Learned counsel also argued that earlier a F.I.R., in Case Crime No. 434 of 2024 under Sections 61(2), 3(5), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 336(3), 340 (2), 338 of B.N.S. and Section 66, 66B, 66C, 43 and 84 B of Information Technology Act was lodged at Police Station Ecotech-III, District Gautambudh Nagar, in which the co-accused Sangeeta Gupta has already been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.05.2025, copy of which order is at page no. 451 of the paper book. Learned counsel further argued that Sangeeta Gupta is the wife of the applicant and when she has been enlarged on bail, the informant in order to cause harm and harassment, lodged the F.I.R. of the present case on 14.06.2025 on more or less similar set of allegations as contained in Case Crime No. 434 of 2024. He further submits that it is a business dispute amongst the family members, which has been given shape of criminal prosecution of the applicant at the behest of the informant. He thus submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is 3 BAIL No. 28145 of 2025 languishing in jail since 18.06.2025.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.Learned counsel for the informant further argued that the applicant and the informant are cousin and the applicant along with the co-accused Sangeeta Gupta have committed cheating forgery for wrongful gain. He further submits that the instant matter pertains to P.P.kit kept in the store without informing the informant and the G.S.T. raid was also conducted, thereafter notice was given to the firm and the informant, which is pending consideration. Learned counsel also argued that the applicant and the co-accused committing one offence after another just for wrongful gain on account of which, the informant suffered huge loss as such it cannot be said the informant is initiating one proceeding after another. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that the applicant and the co-accused have committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, misappropriation of funds, money laundering and undertaking sham transactions, which have resulted in wrongly loss in crores to the firm M/s Moda Cocktail, its erstwhile partner Rajinder Gupta and to the informant and therefore the accused applicant is not entitled for bail.

6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, partnership dispute amongst the same family, MOU also shows that any dispute arose between the parties would be resolved through arbitration, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Let applicant Sharad Gupta involved in Case Crime No.348 of 2025 under Sections 417, 418, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Surajpur, District Gautambudh Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which 4 BAIL No. 28145 of 2025 the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the informant/trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

9. The bail application is allowed. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) September 25, 2025 S.Ali SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad