Harjeet Singh @ Gore vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1752 of 2025

Versus Harjeet Singh @ Gore .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Singh, Anshu Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Brijesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Court No. - 15

¶5

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶6

Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the respondent is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri B.K. Singh learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.0185 of 2024 under Section 379, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Safipur, District Unnao.

¶9

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant is the Director of M/s USD Infraprojects Private Limited, Sultanpur. In November 2022, the informant’s company was allotted earthwork in the Ganga Expressway Project in District Unnao, from Chainage No. 391.900 to 397.175. The accused–applicant and his wife also have a registered construction company, of which Smt. Khushpreet Kaur is the proprietor and the applicant is the authorized representative. A consortium agreement was executed between the parties to carry out the said work at the agreed rate. The work commenced in November 2022.

¶10

NABAIL No. 1752 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

It is alleged that, by hatching a conspiracy, the accused persons fraudulently obtained a sum of Rs.1,47,23,200/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Seven Lakh Twenty-Three Thousand Two Hundred) without performing the work. When the complainant demanded the money back, the accused persons initially agreed in the presence of named witnesses. However, on 12.02.2024, they allegedly stole diesel from the company’s tanker and some machinery from the project site. Again, on 21.03.2024, they allegedly committed theft of machinery including tippers, roller, grader etc. It is further alleged that the signature of Smt. Khushpreet Kaur on the consortium agreement was forged by the applicant.

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The applicant has no criminal history and the offence is triable by a Magistrate. It is submitted that the applicant and the co-accused carried out earthwork amounting to Rs.2,30,29,950.60/-. A part of the amount was paid by the complainant and the remaining amount, which pertains to the applicant and co-accused, is still pending with the complainant. Specific pleadings regarding this have been made in paragraph 18 of the bail application. When the applicant demanded the outstanding amount from the complainant, they refused, which led to a complaint being made before the Superintendent of Police, Unnao on 12.03.2024. Pursuant to the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the police and an enquiry report dated 30.03.2024 was submitted, stating that both parties were raising claims and counterclaims and the matter appeared to be civil in nature. The report, advising the parties to avail civil remedies, is on record as Annexure-7 to the bail application.

¶14

It is further submitted that the applicant and co-accused had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8980 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2025. The writ petition was disposed of as mediation between the parties failed; however, the Division Bench granted liberty to the applicant to file an anticipatory bail application before the competent court, with a direction that the same be decided

¶15

NABAIL No. 1752 of 2025

¶16

3

¶17

expeditiously on merits.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention to the consortium agreement executed between the parties, which is on record as Annexure-3. It is submitted that the forged agreement has in fact been prepared by the complainant to exert pressure upon the applicant.

¶19

It is submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶20

Per contra, Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail. Shri B.K. Singh submits that the applicant did not cooperate in the mediation proceedings and is also not cooperating in the investigation. It is submitted that the machinery alleged to have been stolen belongs to the applicant himself and he is its rightful owner. It is also pointed out that no civil suit for recovery of money has been filed by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant could not dispute that no such recovery suit has been instituted.

¶21

It is further submitted that a purely civil dispute is being given a criminal colour. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 (paragraphs 34 to 45), wherein it has been held that criminal law should not be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes.

¶22

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Having regard to the liberty granted by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 9890 of 2024, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the enquiry report dated 30.03.2024 which prima facie shows that the dispute appears to be civil in nature, and both sides are raising claims and counterclaims, and in view of the law laid down in Inder Mohan Goswami (supra), as

¶23

NABAIL No. 1752 of 2025

¶24

4

¶25

well as the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation, and considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal & Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant.

¶26

In view of the above, as an interim protection, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/S.H.O.

¶27

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The investigating officer shall enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail, as directed above.

¶28

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall not leave India sans previous permission of the Court.

¶29

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law/ to move application for vacation of this order.

¶30

Let objection be filed by the State within a period of four weeks, and two weeks’ time is granted thereafter for filing a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the complainant.

¶31

List/Put up on 15.01.2026. November 26, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harjeet Singh @ Gore v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

Harjeet Singh @ Gore v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Amit Virma @ Vikki and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Reeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko. and Another

Vikas Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Regional Manager Hazratganj Lko. vs Ram Naresh and 2 Others

Mohd. Shaheed and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.