Anupam Gupta vs State of UT, Chandigarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurbir Singh, J.
Anupam Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of UT, Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M No. 715 of 2023
Decided On : 01-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. R.S. Cheema Senior, Advocate, Ms. Tanu Bedi, Mr. Jaiteshwar S. Bhandari AAG, Punjab, Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi Addl. Public Prosecutor

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Dismissal of 17 petitions for anticipatory bail filed by individual alleged to be involved with fraudulent activities of a construction company - The petitioner marketed plots but claimed limited involvement, while FIRs claimed he induced investments without proper project approvals - The court found no merit in claims of being merely a consultant and emphasized substantial evidence against the petitioner. (Paras 4, 10, 14, 27)

(B) Legal standard - The court highlighted that even proclaimed offenders can apply for anticipatory bail, though typically denied such relief unless exceptional circumstances are present - The burden on the accused to demonstrate cooperation with investigation may influence decisions. (Paras 24, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner associated with a construction company had multiple FIRs lodged against him alleging fraudulent collecting of substantial sums from investors under false pretenses about project approvals. Claims were made that he was not directly linked to company management or funds. Evidence showed he received significant payments for his association with the firm. The directors of the company were abroad and unavailable for inquiry.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the seriousness of the accusations warranted dismissal of bail applications, emphasizing a crucial need for further investigation. Highlighting that the funds involved were considerable and many investors had claims against the company, the court maintained that granting bail could disrupt the investigation.

Issues: The key issues included whether a proclaimed offender can seek anticipatory bail and if the nature of the accusations warranted relief for the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle that anticipatory bail is extraordinary and should not be routinely granted, especially when serious allegations of fraud and potential tampering with evidence are involved. The petitioner, being a high-profile individual associated with a significant financial scheme, must face scrutiny for the role in the alleged frauds.

Result: All 17 petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. common case facts across multiple firs (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's argument regarding business consultancy (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments against the grant of anticipatory bail (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. principles governing anticipatory bail (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. court's dismissal of anticipatory bail applications (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

Judgment

Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.

Vide this common order, 17 petitions i.e. CRM-M-680-2023, CRMM-715-2023, CRM-M-771-2023, CRM-M-2787-2023, CRM-M-2820-2023, CRM-M-2849-2023, CRM-M-2851-2023, CRM-M-2853-2023, CRM-M-2857-2023, CRM-M-2861-2023, CRM-M-2871-2023, CRM-M-2873-2023, CRM-M-2877-2023, CRM-M-2900-2023, CRM-M-2911-2023, CRM-M-2913-2023 and CRM-M-2967-2023 shall be disposed of as all these petitions have been filed by Anupam Gupta and are based on similar facts and circumstances.

2. The brief particulars of all the afore-mentioned 17 cases are as under :-

A CRM-M-680-2023 :

FIR No.0099 dated 11.06.2022 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC Police Station South Sector-34,Chandigarh.

Name of the complainant -	Narinder Kumar and Ravi Kumar.
Amount involved as per version of the State	30,64,000/-.
Details of project-	Aerosiee + Time Square
Whether project is licensed or approved from RERA	No

B CRM-M- 715 -2023 :

FIR No.0065 dated 21.04.2022 under sections 420 & 120-B IPC Police Station South Sector-34, Chandigarh.

Name of the complainant	Ramesh Kumar Chayal and two others
Amount involved as per version of the State	68,000,00/-.
Details of project-	Tecktown Near Airport Road, Zirakpur.
Whether project is licensed or approved from RERA	Yes

C CRM-M-771-2023 :

FIR No.0066 dated 21.04.2022 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120- B IPC Police Station South Sector-34, Chandigarh.

Name of the complainant -	Jaidev Singh and Others.
Amount involved as per version of the State	1,23,73,232/-.
Details of project-	Centrum situated in Village Singpura, Zirakpur + Aeropolise
Whether project is licensed or approved from RERA	Yes.

D CRM-M-2787-2023 :

FIR No.0051 dated 23.03.2022 under sections 420, 467 & 120-B IPC Police Station South Sector-34, Chandigarh.

Name of the complainant	Raman Aggarwal.
Amount involved as per version of the State	2,00,00,000/-.
Details of project	Smart City, Banur, Punjab.
Whether project is licensed or approved from RERA-	No

E CRM-M- 2820 -2023 :

FIR No.0032 dated 15.01.2022 under sections 406, 420 & 120-B IPC Police Station Zirakpur SAS Nagar, Punjab.

Name of the complainant	Amarjit Kaur.
Amount involved as per version of the State	3,11,000/-.
Details of project	Tecktown Near Airport Road, Zirakpur.
Whether project is licensed or approved from RERA	Yes.

F CRM-M-2849-2023 :

FIR No.0101 dated 13.06.2022 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC Police Station South Sector-34, Chandigarh.

Name of the complainant -	Sushil Kumar Mittal.
Amount involved as per version of the State	4,52,56,447/-.
Details of project	Centrum situated in Village Singpura, Zirakpur.
Whether project is licensed or approved from RERA	Yes

G CRM-M-2851-2023 :

FIR No.0120 dated 16.07.2022 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC Police Station South Sector-34, Chandigarh.

Name of the complainant	Mrs. Vanita Rani and six others.
Amount involved as per version of the State	1,42,55,450/-.
Details of project	Camelia situated at Village Aujla, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.
Whether project is licensed or approved from RERA	Yes

H CRM-M-2853-2023 :

FIR No.0119 dated 16.07.2022 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC Police Station South Sector-34, Chandigarh.

Name of the complainant -	Seeta Tanwar and nine others.
Amount involved as per version of the State	3,27,71,444/-.
Deta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHGurbir Singh, J.Anupam Gupta – AppellantVersusState of UT, Chandigarh – RespondentCRM-M No. 715 of 2023 Decided On : 01-06-2023

Cases Referred (11)

Related Judgments

Anupam Gupta VS State of UT, Chandigarh - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1413

Kshetrimayum Amarjit Singh, S/o Ksh.Ranjit Singh of Kakching Makha Leikai Irabot Pareng vs Officer in Charge - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MANIPUR) 4

Naorem Priyobarta Singh, S/o Naorem Purniam Singh of Kakching Wairi Sabal Leikai vs Officer in Charge, Kakching Police Station, Kakching District, Manipur - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MANIPUR) 1

Naorem Priyobarta Singh, S/o Naorem Purniam Singh of Kakching Wairi Sabal Leikai vs Officer in Charge - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MANIPUR) 3

Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav VS State of Bihar - 2022 Supreme(Pat) 355

Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Lekh Ram VS State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary (Home) To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh - 2022 Supreme(HP) 85

Subhash VS State of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 2191

Dharmapal Gautam alias Bhikhari Gautam VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(All) 1100

Ankur Agarwal VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow - 2024 Supreme(All) 1281

Sohail Raza Khan S/O Mohammed Raza Khan VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurbir Singh, J.
Anupam Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of UT, Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M No. 715 of 2023
Decided On : 01-06-2023