JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned AGA for the State and Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, the learned counsel for the informant.

2. By means of the present application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 363/2021, under Sections 323/504/506/406/420/467/468/471 I.PC., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the informant Deepak Sharma on 23.07.2021 against four named persons, including the applicant, and an unknown person, alleging that in December, 2018, co-accused Anand Kumar Singh alias Baba Trikaldarshi met the informant at Mumbai and projected that he had a good understanding of mining of sand and had a sound grip on the market in Banda. The informant visited Lucknow thrice in December, 2018, January, 2019 and February, 2019 where the co-accused Anand Kumar Singh met him in a hospital and at the residence of co-accused Rajiv Porwal and the applicant and the co-accused Navneet Singh Bhadauria also used to sit in the meetings and they claimed themselves to be established businessmen of Morang (a minor mineral used in construction activities). Co-accused Anand Kumar Singh demanded Rs. 1 crore from the informant for a government tender and he asked the informant to sign some documents which had been prepared by the applicant. The applicant had shown some documents purportedly relating to registration of the company in the tender process but the documents turned out to be forged. On 11.02.2019, a notice inviting tenders for excavation of sand was published wherein the applicant had made a bid without knowledge of the informant and co-accused Anand Kumar Singh had told the informant that only the applicant’s name will be used and the actual control of the work will be given to the informant. The informant alleged that he had transferred a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-in the account of M/s V. P. Constructions towards earnest money for the tender. On 08.03.2019, another contract was allotted to M/s V. P. Constructions, which is a firm of the applicant. The informant claims that it was mutually settled between him and the accused persons that the investments and profit in the tender allotted to M/s V. P. Constructions will be distributed amongst all the persons and on 05.12.2020, a joint venture agreement was executed between the informant, the applicant and one Pramod Tiwari. On the same day, another agreement for sale and marketing was executed between the informant and the applicant but after sometime, the accused persons started sale and marketing of excavated sand through M/s V. P. Constructions and they committed a breach of the agreement dated 05.12.2020. The informant alleged that when he objected against it, the accused persons abused and threatened him.

4. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 16.01.2023, after taking into consideration the fact that co-accused namely Rajiv Lochan Paliwal has been granted interim protection vide order dated 20.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1750/2022 "Rajiv Lochan Paliwal Vs. State of U.P. and others". Another co-accused Navneet Bhadauria has also been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1841/2022 "Navneet Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. and others".

5. The State and the informant have filed counter affidavits opposing the anticipatory bail application.

6. The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the application and he has submitted that while granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused Navneet Bhadauria, it was specifically recorded in the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1841 of 2022 that the case of the aforesaid co-accused is distinguishable from the case of Anand Kuma