High Court · 2025

filed seeking bail in case crime/FIR No. 133 of 2022 under sections 420, 406, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C.,P.S. Sarojini Nagar, district Lucknow In the present case, it is alleged that the complainant is running a petrol pump under the name “Shree Filling Station” at Transport Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow, where the named accused persons, including the applicant Ajay Gupta (accountant), committed cheating and forgery. They are alleged to have prepared forged documents and made false entries, withdrawing money on several occasions from the petrol pump and misappropriating funds by entering into a criminal conspiracy with other employees. When the complainant demanded repayment of the misappropriated amount, the accused allegedly threatened to kill him. The complainant also claims to have caught these individuals committing theft on various dates, as detailed in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and no charge sheet has been filed against him, though the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheets against co-accused Lal Bahadur Yadav and Manoj Yadav, who have been granted bail vide order dated 11.05.2023, copies of which have been filed as Annexure No. 11 collectively to the bail application. It is further submitted that the applicant worked only as a part- time data entry operator, responsible for feeding data into the computer for preparation of balance sheets for taxation purposes, which were finalized by Chartered Accountant Abhishek Khanna. He worked only a few days a week for a remuneration of Rs. 12,500/-. The applicant had no involvement in any financial transactions, nor is there any entry in his handwriting in the day book, ledger, or cash book. Hence, no offence of misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, or forgery is made out against him. Even if the prosecution case is accepted in totality, no criminal liability arises against the applicant in respect of forgery, as there is no evidence to support such a claim. Learned AGA and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. They have submitted that the applicant is absconding since 2022. He had filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 680 of 2022, titled "Ajay Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another", which was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2022, directing him to surrender before the competent court within one month and to file a regular bail application, which was to be considered in light of the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 5191 of 2021. Although the applicant availed protection for one month, he failed to surrender within the prescribed period. As a result, the investigation against him came to a halt. Charge sheets were filed against the other two co-accused, but the Investigating Officer could not file a charge sheet against the applicant due to his non-cooperation. Learned AGA, on the basis of case diary, submitted that out of the three accused, the applicant was the mastermind. He was responsible for feeding sales and purchase data, making banking entries, maintaining inventory and expense records, and handling various vouchers including sales, purchases, cash, contra, journal, and stock vouchers. It is disputed that the applicant worked merely as a data entry operator. Rather, it is submitted that he functioned as an accountant and the fraud was executed due to his sound knowledge of accounting. It is further submitted that the applicant recorded collections against old outstanding dues from previous credit sales as fresh sales to conceal the correct sales figures in the party ledger. This manipulation was allegedly carried out by the applicant. Perused the record. The record reveals that despite filing the Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 680 of 2022, the applicant failed to surrender. Consequently, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated. In his absence, a charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 26.10.2023. The applicant continued to abscond and did not cooperate during the investigation. In view of his conduct, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected his bail application. The relevant part of rejection order is extracted below:- अभभययक ददरद मदनननय उचच नयदयदलय कक भक०भम० अभगम जमदनत पदररनदपत सस0-680/2022 " दस०प०सस० मम पदररत आदकश भदनदभकत 12.05.2022 अनतररत धदरद 438 कक पकदश मम समबसधधत नयदयदलय कक समक आतमसमपरण नहह भकयद रयद और वह भनरनतर फरदर रहद, धजसकक कदरण धदरद 82 दस०प०सस० कक कदयरवदरन एवस उसकक अनयकम मम धदरद 83 दस०प०सस० कक कदयरवदहन कक रहतक हन आरहप- धजस पर भदनदक 26.10 2023 हहनक कक पशचदत अभभययक कक फरदर पत नयदयदलय मम रयन और उक कदयरवदभहयदय कट तततनय, ददरद ददधखल भकयद रयद, ससजदन धलयद रयद हह। अभभययक भववकचनद कक ददरदन लरदतदर फरदर रहद हह तरद भववकचनद मम सहयहर नहह भकयद रयद। अभभययक कक उक आचरण कक दभषरत अभभययक कह जमदनत पर ररहद भकयक जदनक कक ससरभत मम जमदनत कद दयरपयहर भकयक जदनक तरद पयनन फरदर हहनक कक पबल आशसकद हह। अतन मदमलक कक समग तथय व पररससरभतयय मम तरद अपरदध कक रसभनरतद कह दभषरत रखतक हहए जमदनत पददन भकयक जदनक कद पयदरप आधदर नहह हह। तदनयसदर अभभययक कद जमदनत पदररनदपत भनरसत भकयक जदनक यहगय हह।" कह नयदयदलय नयदभयक मधजसटट On due consideration of the submissions made and continued abscondence of the applicant and non-cooperation during the investigation, which has been elaborately discussed in the rejection order, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 R.C. SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

filed seeking bail in case crime/FIR No. 133 of 2022 under sections 420, 406, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C.,P.S. Sarojini Nagar, district Lucknow In the present case, it is alleged that the complainant is running a petrol pump under the name “Shree Filling Station” at Transport Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow, where the named accused persons, including the applicant Ajay Gupta (accountant), committed cheating and forgery. They are alleged to have prepared forged documents and made false entries, withdrawing money on several occasions from the petrol pump and misappropriating funds by entering into a criminal conspiracy with other employees. When the complainant demanded repayment of the misappropriated amount, the accused allegedly threatened to kill him. The complainant also claims to have caught these individuals committing theft on various dates, as detailed in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and no charge sheet has been filed against him, though the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheets against co-accused Lal Bahadur Yadav and Manoj Yadav, who have been granted bail vide order dated 11.05.2023, copies of which have been filed as Annexure No. 11 collectively to the bail application. It is further submitted that the applicant worked only as a part- time data entry operator, responsible for feeding data into the computer for preparation of balance sheets for taxation purposes, which were finalized by Chartered Accountant Abhishek Khanna. He worked only a few days a week for a remuneration of Rs. 12,500/-. The applicant had no involvement in any financial transactions, nor is there any entry in his handwriting in the day book, ledger, or cash book. Hence, no offence of misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, or forgery is made out against him. Even if the prosecution case is accepted in totality, no criminal liability arises against the applicant in respect of forgery, as there is no evidence to support such a claim. Learned AGA and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. They have submitted that the applicant is absconding since 2022. He had filed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 680 of 2022, titled "Ajay Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another", which was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2022, directing him to surrender before the competent court within one month and to file a regular bail application, which was to be considered in light of the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 5191 of 2021. Although the applicant availed protection for one month, he failed to surrender within the prescribed period. As a result, the investigation against him came to a halt. Charge sheets were filed against the other two co-accused, but the Investigating Officer could not file a charge sheet against the applicant due to his non-cooperation. Learned AGA, on the basis of case diary, submitted that out of the three accused, the applicant was the mastermind. He was responsible for feeding sales and purchase data, making banking entries, maintaining inventory and expense records, and handling various vouchers including sales, purchases, cash, contra, journal, and stock vouchers. It is disputed that the applicant worked merely as a data entry operator. Rather, it is submitted that he functioned as an accountant and the fraud was executed due to his sound knowledge of accounting. It is further submitted that the applicant recorded collections against old outstanding dues from previous credit sales as fresh sales to conceal the correct sales figures in the party ledger. This manipulation was allegedly carried out by the applicant. Perused the record. The record reveals that despite filing the Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 680 of 2022, the applicant failed to surrender. Consequently, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated. In his absence, a charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 26.10.2023. The applicant continued to abscond and did not cooperate during the investigation. In view of his conduct, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected his bail application. The relevant part of rejection order is extracted below:- अभभययक ददरद मदनननय उचच नयदयदलय कक भक०भम० अभगम जमदनत पदररनदपत सस0-680/2022 " दस०प०सस० मम पदररत आदकश भदनदभकत 12.05.2022 अनतररत धदरद 438 कक पकदश मम समबसधधत नयदयदलय कक समक आतमसमपरण नहह भकयद रयद और वह भनरनतर फरदर रहद, धजसकक कदरण धदरद 82 दस०प०सस० कक कदयरवदरन एवस उसकक अनयकम मम धदरद 83 दस०प०सस० कक कदयरवदहन कक रहतक हन आरहप- धजस पर भदनदक 26.10 2023 हहनक कक पशचदत अभभययक कक फरदर पत नयदयदलय मम रयन और उक कदयरवदभहयदय कट तततनय, ददरद ददधखल भकयद रयद, ससजदन धलयद रयद हह। अभभययक भववकचनद कक ददरदन लरदतदर फरदर रहद हह तरद भववकचनद मम सहयहर नहह भकयद रयद। अभभययक कक उक आचरण कक दभषरत अभभययक कह जमदनत पर ररहद भकयक जदनक कक ससरभत मम जमदनत कद दयरपयहर भकयक जदनक तरद पयनन फरदर हहनक कक पबल आशसकद हह। अतन मदमलक कक समग तथय व पररससरभतयय मम तरद अपरदध कक रसभनरतद कह दभषरत रखतक हहए जमदनत पददन भकयक जदनक कद पयदरप आधदर नहह हह। तदनयसदर अभभययक कद जमदनत पदररनदपत भनरसत भकयक जदनक यहगय हह।" कह नयदयदलय नयदभयक मधजसटट On due consideration of the submissions made and continued abscondence of the applicant and non-cooperation during the investigation, which has been elaborately discussed in the rejection order, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 R.C. SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench