HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1046 of 2023 Washim Raza Khan ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Abhishek Anthwal and Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.458 of 2022, dated 25.11.2022, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the applicant and the co- accused induced the informant to invest in their firm assuring high return @ 7% of the profit. According to the assurance, the informant was required to pack the articles to be given to him by the applicant and his firm; total `51 Lakhs was deposited in the account of the firm owned by the applicant, but the articles were not sent for packing. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the applicant had no GST registration on the date when 2 he took money. Some articles were subsequently sent for packing, but they were sent along with forged documents/bills. The FIR is quite in detail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that having GST registration is not the condition necessary for entering into an agreement. It is argued that the applicant had given an Arbitration Notice, thereafter, the FIR has been lodged and it was a contractual agreement. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the applicant’s GST registration has already been cancelled in the month of September, 2021, whereas they entered into an agreement to supply the articles for packing in the month of April, 2022. It is also submitted that the bills and other documents provided by the applicant were forged; Non Bailable Warrants have already been issued against the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, Non Bailable Warrants were issued post filing of the anticipatory bail application. 7. At the time of considering an anticipatory bail application, various factors are to be considered, which include the gravity of offence, position of the offender, 3 ramification or the consequence of the act on the society at large, etc. 8. According to the prosecution, without having any GST Registration, the applicant entered into an agreement with the informant to induce him to deliver about `51 Lakhs assuring good returns. But, the applicant did not perform part of his duties and when insisted, he sent the articles for packing with forged bills and documents. It makes the offences more serious. 9. Non-Bailable Warrants have also been issued against the applicant. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that this is not a case, in which, the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected. 11. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.01.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60f54a287 831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515A087CAE FD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.01.07 18:20:54 +05'30'