In the case of Gajanan Dattatray Gorey v. State of Maharashtra

1. Heard Shri Amit Singh, Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for the applicant, as also Shri Naresh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the complainant and the Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

2. The applicant has filed this application seeking bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 306 of 2024 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 319(2), 317(2), B.N.S. P.S. Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 23/07/2024 against the applicant stating that the complainant had contacted the applicant for purchasing a plot. The applicant projected that he was the power-of-attorney holder of one Pradeep Kumar Lalwani, whose plot was open for sale. The applicant took Rs. 2 lacs on 03/07/2024 and he took Rs. 38 lacs through RTGS on that very date, i.e., 03/07/2024, but did not execute any sale-deed in favour of the complainant.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent in the case at hand. The applicant's involvement in three other cases have been disclosed in para-24 of the affidavit, in one of which he has been granted bail and in the other two cases he is yet to receive a summon.

5. The applicant was granted interim bail by means of an order dated 17/04/2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court after recording that the applicant is ready to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 40 2 BAIL No. 657 of 2025 lacs within a period of 3 months.

6. In the case of Gajanan Dattatray Gorey v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online 1571, the accused had filed an affidavit before the High Court undertaking that he would deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lacs, but ultimately he resiled to do so and the High Court, which had earlier granted him bail on the undertaking, canceled the bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it was too much for the lawyer of the appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his client to deposit Rs. 25 lacs was unreasonable. It reflects on the professional ethics. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that:- "19. By this order we make it clear, that too, in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate relief.

20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make.

21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honour of the court.

22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again."

7. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the applicant had earlier been granted interim bail on his undertaking to repay the amount, the bail-application cannot be allowed on the aforesaid undertaking and it has to be tested on its merits.

8. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and a copy of the chargesheet dated 26/09/2024.

9. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail- application, but he states that he is not aware of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Dattatrey Gorey(supra). Learned counsel for the complainant insists that the pleas 3 BAIL No. 657 of 2025 taken by him in the counter affidavit be dealt with while deciding the bail application.

10. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the applicant had committed the similar nature of offence regarding which an F.I.R. No. 172 of 2023 was lodged in P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. The applicant was granted bail in the aforesaid case by means of order dated 17/11/2023 passed by this court in Bail Application No. 13569 of 2023 and taking advantage of the aforesaid order, the applicant has defrauded the complainant of Rs. 40 lacs. It is also alleged that the applicant holds three different Pan Cards and three different Adhar Cards.

11. Court asked the learned counsel for the complainant whether the complainant has instituted any proceedings for recovery of money, to which he answered in the ‘negative’.

12. From the aforesaid conduct of the complainant it appears that the complainant has filed the F.I.R. merely in order to put pressure on the applicant to return her money without filing any civil suit for this purpose.

13. By adopting this device, the complainant has deceived the public at large in depriving it of the benefit of the money, which would have been paid as court-fee, which would have enured to the public at large.

14. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged alleging that the complainant had given Rs. 40 lacs to the applicant for purchasing a plot, but neither a sale-deed was executed in favour of the complainant nor was her money refunded; that the complainant had not entered into any registered agreement to purchase the immovable property and she has not instituted any suit for recovery of money or for execution of the sale- deed; although the F.I.R. makes out commission of offence by the applicant, it appears that the complainant has lodged the F.I.R. in order to put pressure on the applicant to refund her money, which relief is essentially of a civil nature and which can only be granted in a suit for recovery of money filed by the complainant after payment of requisite court-fee, which would enure to the benefit of the public at large and, prima facie, it appears that the complainant has taken recourse to the 4 BAIL No. 657 of 2025 criminal law for evading the payment of court-fee and the cumbersome process of the civil suit, and that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06/09/2024, whereas the investigation already stands completed, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to released on bail in the aforesaid crime.

15. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Amit Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid F.I.R./Case Crime Number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. August 26, 2025 A.Nigam (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANUJ NIGAM ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Amit Singh, Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for the applicant, as also Shri Naresh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the complainant and the Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

2. The applicant has filed this application seeking bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 306 of 2024 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 319(2), 317(2), B.N.S. P.S. Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 23/07/2024 against the applicant stating that the complainant had contacted the applicant for purchasing a plot. The applicant projected that he was the power-of-attorney holder of one Pradeep Kumar Lalwani, whose plot was open for sale. The applicant took Rs. 2 lacs on 03/07/2024 and he took Rs. 38 lacs through RTGS on that very date, i.e., 03/07/2024, but did not execute any sale-deed in favour of the complainant.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent in the case at hand. The applicant's involvement in three other cases have been disclosed in para-24 of the affidavit, in one of which he has been granted bail and in the other two cases he is yet to receive a summon.

5. The applicant was granted interim bail by means of an order dated 17/04/2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court after recording that the applicant is ready to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 40 2 BAIL No. 657 of 2025 lacs within a period of 3 months.

6. In the case of Gajanan Dattatray Gorey v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online 1571, the accused had filed an affidavit before the High Court undertaking that he would deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lacs, but ultimately he resiled to do so and the High Court, which had earlier granted him bail on the undertaking, canceled the bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it was too much for the lawyer of the appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his client to deposit Rs. 25 lacs was unreasonable. It reflects on the professional ethics. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that:- "19. By this order we make it clear, that too, in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate relief.

20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make.

21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honour of the court.

22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again."

7. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the applicant had earlier been granted interim bail on his undertaking to repay the amount, the bail-application cannot be allowed on the aforesaid undertaking and it has to be tested on its merits.

8. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and a copy of the chargesheet dated 26/09/2024.

9. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail- application, but he states that he is not aware of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Dattatrey Gorey(supra). Learned counsel for the complainant insists that the pleas 3 BAIL No. 657 of 2025 taken by him in the counter affidavit be dealt with while deciding the bail application.

10. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the applicant had committed the similar nature of offence regarding which an F.I.R. No. 172 of 2023 was lodged in P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. The applicant was granted bail in the aforesaid case by means of order dated 17/11/2023 passed by this court in Bail Application No. 13569 of 2023 and taking advantage of the aforesaid order, the applicant has defrauded the complainant of Rs. 40 lacs. It is also alleged that the applicant holds three different Pan Cards and three different Adhar Cards.

11. Court asked the learned counsel for the complainant whether the complainant has instituted any proceedings for recovery of money, to which he answered in the ‘negative’.

12. From the aforesaid conduct of the complainant it appears that the complainant has filed the F.I.R. merely in order to put pressure on the applicant to return her money without filing any civil suit for this purpose.

13. By adopting this device, the complainant has deceived the public at large in depriving it of the benefit of the money, which would have been paid as court-fee, which would have enured to the public at large.

14. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged alleging that the complainant had given Rs. 40 lacs to the applicant for purchasing a plot, but neither a sale-deed was executed in favour of the complainant nor was her money refunded; that the complainant had not entered into any registered agreement to purchase the immovable property and she has not instituted any suit for recovery of money or for execution of the sale- deed; although the F.I.R. makes out commission of offence by the applicant, it appears that the complainant has lodged the F.I.R. in order to put pressure on the applicant to refund her money, which relief is essentially of a civil nature and which can only be granted in a suit for recovery of money filed by the complainant after payment of requisite court-fee, which would enure to the benefit of the public at large and, prima facie, it appears that the complainant has taken recourse to the 4 BAIL No. 657 of 2025 criminal law for evading the payment of court-fee and the cumbersome process of the civil suit, and that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06/09/2024, whereas the investigation already stands completed, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to released on bail in the aforesaid crime.

15. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Amit Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid F.I.R./Case Crime Number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. August 26, 2025 A.Nigam (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANUJ NIGAM ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench