Himanshu Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11260

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1763 of 2024

Applicant :- Himanshu Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Achleshwar Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Case is called out in the revised list.

¶7

No one is present on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 574 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 500, 120-B IPC, Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.

¶10

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 14.08.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶11

" The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.574/2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 500, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. P.G.I., District Lucknow.

¶12

Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

An illness slip has been received on behalf of the complainant however, this Court has taken note of the fact that on the last date, opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the complainant to file short counter affidavit however, no short counter affidavit has been filed by him.

¶14

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that Anil Kumar Sharma and Kanchan Sharma used to run construction firm in the name of M/s Mahashakti Construction in the year 2016, the complainant became the guarantor of Rs.9,00,000/- CC limit loan of Anil Kumar Sharma and Kanchan Sharma. The loan was sanctioned on 02.06.2016. The house of co-accused Anil Sharma and Kanchan Sharma was pledged.

¶15

It is further alleged that applicant also assured him that he can withdraw the guarantee, his original paper within one year during the review period. It is further alleged that after some time when the complainant asked the applicant regarding his withdrawal of guarantee he evaded the request and on 02.11.2021 when the complainant received a notice regarding the loan amount from the bank he came to know that co-accused Anil Sharma and Kanchan Sharma by forging the signature of the guarantor/complainant have taken further facilities from the bank in the form of loan.

¶16

It is lastly alleged that complainant except becoming the guarantor for one time has not signed anywhere thus, it is also alleged that applicant and the other bank officers in conspiracy with the main accused Anil Sharma and Kanchan Sharma by forging the signature of the complainant granted loan facilities to the main accused Anil Sharma and Kanchan Sharma.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as Branch Manager, Branch Rajni Khand, Lucknow of Bank of Maharashtra on 31.03.2018 and he was transferred to NOIDA in July, 2020. The co-accused Saurabh Jain who was similarly situated has been granted protection by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7210 of 2023 both the applicant and the co-accused Saurabh Jain are alleged to have played similar role in the offence.

¶18

It is further submitted that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- have been transferred from cash credit loan account of M/s Maha Shakti Construction to Vijay Kumar Verma and subsequently, an amount of Rs.1,68,000/- has been transferred to a firm namely, Patel Automibile Service Station owned by the complainant. This shows the complicity of the complainant who is the beneficiary and falsified the prosecution version. The statement of CC loan account of M/s Maha Shakti Construction for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 are annexed along with supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant today which is taken on record.

¶19

He further submits that complainant has mentioned in the F.I.R. No.574/2022 dated 24.09.2022 that he was in shock to know about the subsequent government financial aid given by the bank to M/s Maha Shakti Construction so as to sustain the CC loan account and not to become a non-performing asset. He submits that an overdue notice dated 17.03.2021 was sent by the bank regarding the due amount of the subsequent government financial aid to the complainant which falsifies the prosecution case.

¶20

It is further submitted that the FSL report pointed out by the learned A.G.A. on the previous date to this Court is not relevant for the prosecution case as it relates to the signature of the applicant in another bank so far as the signature of the complainant/guarantor in the present bank of M/s Maha Shakti Construction, the FSL report has been obtained where the signature of the guarantor have been found to be similar to the signatures made by the guarantors on the document of CC loan which again falsifies the prosecution story.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶22

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶23

As a last opportunity, complainant is also granted liberty to file short counter affidavit by the next date.

¶24

List on 09.09.2024.

¶25

Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶26

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant-Himanshu Soni shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶27

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶28

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection ."

¶29

From perusal of the order dated 14.08.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Counsel and the chargesheet has been also filed in the matter. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Himanshu Soni till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶31

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶32

(ii) that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶33

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶34

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶35

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶36

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this protection.

¶37

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 kkv/

¶38

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Himanshu Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prateek Singh @ Alok Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Dev Gupta Sub Inspector vs State of U.P. Thru. Inspector Jaiprakash Yadav Establishment Lko

Smt. Pratibha Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mahfooj Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gopal Kumar @ Rosan @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gangeshwar Pandey @ Golu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.