Gaurav Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

The present application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 1094 of 2013, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C., Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Shahjahanpur.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. The applicant was an agent in a company known as Ramel Industries Ltd. and working on commission basis. The applicant was neither a director nor a senior functionary, who is responsible for a day to day affairs of the company. The applicant is not responsible for the viability of the business model or failure of the company to make good on its promises of higher returns. No amount was credited in the account of the applicant. The amount was deposited in the account of the alleged company. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, identically placed co-accused, Shiv Kumar Sharma, Yogesh Gupta and Anil Kumar have been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report by this Court vide orders dated 05.09.2024, 30.06.2023 and 21.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 7240 of 2024, 7315 of 2023 and 6497 of 2025 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in

¶12

NABAIL No. 5445 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

para no.16 of the affidavit. The investigation is pending for the last twelve years. It is next submitted that the applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶16

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶17

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report, the name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation, the applicant was an agent in the alleged company, the amount was deposited in the account of the alleged company, at this stage there is no substantive evidence against the applicant, identically placed co-accused, Shiv Kumar Sharma, Yogesh Gupta and Anil Kumar have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶18

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Gaurav Kumar Sharma be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶22

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to

¶23

NABAIL No. 5445 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶26

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶27

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶28

The application stands disposed of.

¶29

September 9, 2025 Manish Kr

¶30

(Vivek Varma,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. 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