Dharmendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9209 of 2025

¶3

Dharmendra Singh And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Imran Ullah, Vineet Vikram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 73

¶7

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶8

Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally, disposed off.

¶9

Heard Sri Mohit Singh Advocate holding brief of Sri Vineet Vikram, learned counsel for the applicants and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 360 of 2024, under Sections 379, 413, 417, 418, 424, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B IPC and Section 3(2) Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 7.11.2024 against applicants and others.

¶12

He further submitted that as per allegations, applicants were partners of M/s Garwal Stones and M/s Ma Jwala which indulged in illegal mining through its crime proceed purchased the firm of the applicants.

¶13

He further submitted that entire allegations levelled against the applicants are totally false.

¶14

NABAIL No. 9209 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

He further submitted that applicants are only partners of 8% in the M/s Garwal Stones and therefore they are sleeping partners.

¶17

He further submitted that even when GST Department and State Government imposed fine against the firm of the applicant with regard to the allegations then applicants have already deposited the fine and matter has been compounded.

¶18

He next submitted that even FIR of the present case was lodged in the month of November, 2024 but after one year Investigating Officer of the case under the pretext of the FIR now is trying to arrest the applicants.

¶19

He further submitted that with regard to the applicants investigation of the case is still pending.

¶20

He further submitted that however apart from the present case applicants are having criminal history of two other cases but their criminal history has been explained in para 49 of supplementary filed in support to the instant application. He further submitted that out of two cases, however one case was of section 4 PMLA but in that case applicant has been released on personal bond and another relates to minor offence under section 323IPC.

¶21

He further submitted that therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case applicant should be released on anticipatory bail till trial.

¶22

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.

¶24

However as per allegations applicants are partners of firm namely M/s Garwal Stones and their firm was purchased through proceeds of crime which was allegedly committed by another firm namely M/s Ma Jwala but it reflects in M/s Garwal Stones applicants are partners of only 8% and they appeared to be dormant partners.

¶25

Further it also reflects that with regard to the allegation made in the FIR of the present case separate proceedings were initiated against them under

¶26

NABAIL No. 9209 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

the provisions of GST but in that case fine has been deposited and matter has been compounded.

¶29

Further FIR of the present case was lodged in the month of November 2024 i.e. about a year before and however, both applicants were named in the FIR but despite of that after the FIR investigating officer did not propose their arrest and it appears after one year he started making attempt to arrest them.

¶30

The Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2025(3) Crimes 339 observed that 'The fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail'.

¶31

Further there is no allegation that applicants are either absconder or they were not cooperating with the investigation.

¶32

Further apart from the present case, however, applicants are having criminal history of two other cases including a case of PMLA but in case of PMLA applicants have been released on personal bond and another case relates to section 323 IPC.

¶33

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶34

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Dharmendra Singh and Sanjay Sharma, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶35

i. that the applicants 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;

¶36

ii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶37

iii. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶38

iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶39

NABAIL No. 9209 of 2025

¶40

4

¶41

witness;

¶42

v. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶43

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶44

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming their independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶45

November 26, 2025

¶46

Ankita

¶47

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶48

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Singh and Another 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

Rahul vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajan Gupta vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suraj Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Payal Gupta vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Seema Begam vs Akash Kumar

Nitesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others