Dismissed

Anil Mithas v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2021ABAIL/66/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was rejected by the High Court bench for an applicant accused in a cheating case involving large sums. The court denied anticipatory bail citing the nature of economic crimes and the applicant's prior criminal history, emphasizing that bail is not automatic in such scenarios.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no coercive action if applicant surrenders within 30 days.

Anil Mithas Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 66 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Mithas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ananya Pandey,Ashish Kumar Dubey,Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi,Sr. Advocate (C.L. Pandey) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri C.L. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant , Anil Mithas, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1618 of 2018, under Sections- 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Phase III, District- Gautambudh Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶11

There is allegation against the applicant in the F.I.R that he along with other co-accused persons have formed a gang and are involved in cheating innocent persons. In 2005, one Gaurav Arora, gave advance money for purchasing Plot No- 7, Knowledge Park-V, Greater Noida, West (Noida Extension). The aforesaid agreement was executed for amount of Rs. 100 crores and money was to be paid within 4 years. The accused persons have taken Rs. 5,60,00,000/- from the applicant by showing him the aforesaid land on different dates. Thereafter, he came to know that the applicant and other co-accused persons, are not the owners of the aforesaid land but it is owned by Sukhmani Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The accused-applicant and other accused persons are not returning the money and have refused to execute agreement of the same. There are number of criminal cases pending against them in different courts regarding the offence of cheating, threat and criminal breach of trust.

¶12

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the

¶13

applicant is a builder. The alleged amount of Rs. 5,60,00,000/allegedly paid in cash cannot be believed since no one makes such a huge amount of payment in cash. There is no documentary evidence of the transaction. Only an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is stated to be have been paid by R.T.G.S.

¶14

He has further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged offences are not made out against him. The applicant is a reputed businessman.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application of the applicant and has submitted that in paragraph no. 38 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, the applicant himself has admitted that he has received Rs. 50,00,000/- from the informant via R.T.G.S. as earnest money. The aforesaid money was utilized in constructing boundary wall with the consent of the applicant. He has further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of 10 such cases. He has been granted relief in some cases by this Court.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the applicant is involved in commission of economic offences. The Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, has held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is accordingly, rejected.

¶18

In case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days, as requested by his counsel, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶19

However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶20

It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

¶21

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.3.2021 KS

Anil Mithas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Mithas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Wasif and 5 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Virendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd.Naeem and 10 Others Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Subhash and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kulveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another