Brijesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another). for ready reference the same is reproduced herien bel

Heard Mr. Vipiin Gangwar, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. This repeat anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant-Brijesh Kumar Gupta Alias Brajesh Kumar Gupta seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 372 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Bareilly. The first anticipatory bail application of applicant was disposed of finally by the court vide order dated 6.10.2020, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6426 of 2020 (Brijesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Another). for ready reference the same is reproduced herien below: "Heard Mr. Vivek Mittal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Devansh Rathore, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Brijesh Kumar Gupta, in connection with Case Crime No. 0372 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the order dated

6.7.2020 passed by this Court in the case of main accused Pramod Kumar Saxena. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein below:- "Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sr Amrit Raj Chaurasiya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in F.I.R. and as per the F.I.R., it was lodged against some bank officials and account holder. It is stated that someone 2 NABAIL No. 7832 of 2025 had opened a forged account in the Nainital Bank Ltd. Branch Civil Lines, Bareilly with the name of complainant/informant and has made a transaction of Rs.14,00,000/- due to which, Income Tax Department has sent a notice to complainant for payment of income tax of Rs.1,26,440/- and thereafter complainant came to know about the aforesaid forged bank account with his name. He further submitted that the name of applicant has come into light for the first time in the statement of Branch Manager, as mentioned in para 12 of the affidavit. The allegations against the applicant is that he is the introducer of the account in question. Moreover, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant on the basis of application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The present FIR has been lodged against the applicant just to malign his image in the society. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. In the event of arrest of the applicant Pramod Kumar Saxena involved in Case Crime No.0372 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from Bank officials." Mr. Vivek Mittal, learned counsel for applicant contends that on the facts as noted in the order dated

6.7.2020 and also for the reasons recorded therein, the present applicant is also entitled to same benefit. 3 NABAIL No. 7832 of 2025 There is no distinguishing feature to dis-entitle to applicant the same benefit on the ground of parity. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 26.8.2020 passed by this Court in the case of co-accused Devendra Kumr Bammi, who is Bank employee, like the present applicant. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, but, he could not dispute the facts as submitted above as well as factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant Brijesh Kumar Gupta involved in Case Crime No.0372 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. " At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State has raised a preliminary objection by contending that charge-sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted by Investigating Officer on

17.11.2020. Consequently, the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. took cognizance upon aforesaid 4 NABAIL No. 7832 of 2025 charge sheet vide cognizance taking order dated 10.7.2022. As per instructions received by him, the learned A.G.A. further, contends that though summons were issued to the applicant but inspite of service of summons, applicant failed to honour the summons. Consequently, non bailable warrant was issued against applicant. Placing reliance of judgement of Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 282, learned A.G.A. submits that since coercive process has been issued against applicant, therefore, present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. In view of above, this application for anticipatory bail is therefore liable to be rejected. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence accusation made as well as complicity of applicant, coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for anticipatory bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court does not finds that in view of subsequent development as noticed above, the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. In view of above, the present application for anticipatory bail fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. October 10, 2025 Arshad (Rajeev Misra,J.) ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. Vipiin Gangwar, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. This repeat anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant-Brijesh Kumar Gupta Alias Brajesh Kumar Gupta seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 372 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Bareilly. The first anticipatory bail application of applicant was disposed of finally by the court vide order dated 6.10.2020, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6426 of 2020 (Brijesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Another). for ready reference the same is reproduced herien below: "Heard Mr. Vivek Mittal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Devansh Rathore, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Brijesh Kumar Gupta, in connection with Case Crime No. 0372 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the order dated

6.7.2020 passed by this Court in the case of main accused Pramod Kumar Saxena. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein below:- "Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sr Amrit Raj Chaurasiya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in F.I.R. and as per the F.I.R., it was lodged against some bank officials and account holder. It is stated that someone 2 NABAIL No. 7832 of 2025 had opened a forged account in the Nainital Bank Ltd. Branch Civil Lines, Bareilly with the name of complainant/informant and has made a transaction of Rs.14,00,000/- due to which, Income Tax Department has sent a notice to complainant for payment of income tax of Rs.1,26,440/- and thereafter complainant came to know about the aforesaid forged bank account with his name. He further submitted that the name of applicant has come into light for the first time in the statement of Branch Manager, as mentioned in para 12 of the affidavit. The allegations against the applicant is that he is the introducer of the account in question. Moreover, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant on the basis of application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The present FIR has been lodged against the applicant just to malign his image in the society. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. In the event of arrest of the applicant Pramod Kumar Saxena involved in Case Crime No.0372 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from Bank officials." Mr. Vivek Mittal, learned counsel for applicant contends that on the facts as noted in the order dated

6.7.2020 and also for the reasons recorded therein, the present applicant is also entitled to same benefit. 3 NABAIL No. 7832 of 2025 There is no distinguishing feature to dis-entitle to applicant the same benefit on the ground of parity. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 26.8.2020 passed by this Court in the case of co-accused Devendra Kumr Bammi, who is Bank employee, like the present applicant. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, but, he could not dispute the facts as submitted above as well as factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant Brijesh Kumar Gupta involved in Case Crime No.0372 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. " At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State has raised a preliminary objection by contending that charge-sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted by Investigating Officer on

17.11.2020. Consequently, the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. took cognizance upon aforesaid 4 NABAIL No. 7832 of 2025 charge sheet vide cognizance taking order dated 10.7.2022. As per instructions received by him, the learned A.G.A. further, contends that though summons were issued to the applicant but inspite of service of summons, applicant failed to honour the summons. Consequently, non bailable warrant was issued against applicant. Placing reliance of judgement of Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 282, learned A.G.A. submits that since coercive process has been issued against applicant, therefore, present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. In view of above, this application for anticipatory bail is therefore liable to be rejected. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence accusation made as well as complicity of applicant, coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for anticipatory bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court does not finds that in view of subsequent development as noticed above, the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. In view of above, the present application for anticipatory bail fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. October 10, 2025 Arshad (Rajeev Misra,J.) ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad