Allahabad High Court

GAURI SHANKAR @ GAURI SHANKAR SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that, as the applicant was merely an agent with no evidence of personal misappropriation or intent to obstruct justice, he is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Gauri Shankar, who was alleged to have induced investors to deposit money with VEALL Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited under a scheme promising to double the amount in six years. The applicant contended that he was merely an agent of the company, had no control over its daily affairs, had invested his own money, and had no criminal antecedents. The State argued that the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence of misappropriation under Section 316(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, and that the applicant should not be released. The Court examined precedents on anticipatory bail, noting the need to assess the nature of the offence, the role of the accused, and the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing. Finding no evidence that the applicant had forged documents, misappropriated funds, or was likely to obstruct the investigation, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the interim anticipatory bail granted on 03.07.2026 was made absolute, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, acting as an agent of VEALL Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited, is liable to arrest under Section 316(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Whether a prima facie case of offence exists against the applicant sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant's cooperation and lack of criminal antecedents justify granting anticipatory bail.
Whether the conditions imposed under anticipatory bail are appropriate in the facts of the case.

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 316(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 316(5)
B.N.S.
agent liability
fraud
SEBI
misappropriation
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 5256 of 2026

Gauri Shankar @ Gauri Shankar Shukla
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brij Bhushan Upadhyay, Nitin Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aman Kumar, G.A., Pandey Balkrishna

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pandey
Balkrishna, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State
and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No. 19 of 2026, under Sections 316(5) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station
- Unj, District Bhadohi, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was merely an agent
of VEALL Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited. The allegation against the
applicant is of inducing the informant and certain other persons into
investing different sums of money with the promise of doubling the same
within a period of six years. He seeks anticipatory bail on the following
grounds :-

i. The applicant is not in-charge of the daily affairs of the Company. He
was merely an agent, who was employed by the Company.

ii. The bonds were issued in favour of the investors and the applicant was
neither the custodian of the money nor was required under the law to
return the same.

iii. No offence under Section 316(5) of the B.N.S. is made out against the
applicant.
NABAIL No. 5256 of 2026
2

iv. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the Securities
and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') had
initiated recovery proceedings against TOGO Retail Marketing and its
directors. He further contends that certain writ petitions were filed before
the Calcutta High Court and the Calcutta High Court has constituted a
one-member committee with respect to certain groups of companies,
which also include TOGO Retail Marketing and the remedy open to the
informant and the other claimants would be of approaching the one-
member committee constituted by the Calcutta High Court. The deposit
confirmation certificates were issued to the investors on behalf of VEALL
Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited and TOGO Retail Marketing Limited
Group of Companies. The learned counsel further contends that there is
no allegation that the deposit confirmation certificates were forged. There
is also nothing on record to indicate that it was the applicant, who had
misappropriated or converted to his own use the deposits made by the
investors. The applicant had invested his own money and that of his
family members in VEALL Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited and had he
been a part of the supposed conspiracy to defraud the investors, he would
not have invested his own money. Pressure is being brought to bear on the
applicant to return the money, which has been taken by the Company.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is not responsible for the failure of the scheme; the investment
by the investors was subjected to market risk. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the fraud and the crime was committed by the applicant
in the name of Company or the deposit bonds were found to be fabricated
documents, allegedly prepared by the applicant. The applicant had also
suffered losses with the operational shut down of the Company in
question. It is next submitted that none of the witnesses in their statements
had accused the applicant of embezzlement, but stated that it was the
applicant who solicited investment on behalf of the Company in question.
There is no money trail in the present case and there is no allegation upon
the applicant of siphoning money of the investors including the informant
and his wife.
NABAIL No. 5256 of 2026
3

6. Further submission was made by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the informant did not make the Company or its Director as accused
wherein the alleged amount was invested by the informant and this fact
itself proves that the present F.I.R. was lodged only for the purposes of
harassment of the applicant and to exert pressure upon him to return the
money from his personal capacity though he did not receive the same in
his own name or in his personal capacity. It is further contended that the
interim protection was granted to the applicant on 03.07.2026 and he is
cooperating in the investigation. No chargesheet has been submitted by
the investigating officer against the applicant in the present case. The
applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and
when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has
also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he
shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation,
and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. It is further
contended by the learned counsel for the informant that from perusal of
allegations contained in the First Information Report, it is evident that the
applicant by representing himself to be an agent of VEALL Mutual
Benefit Nidhi Limited, had induced the informant to part with a sum of
Rs. 01 lakh and in respect of which two separate bonds were issued, the
payment of which was to be made on its maturity after 06 years, however,
when after lapse of 06 years, the informant approached the applicant to
make the payment good then he refused to make the payment and
informed him that the Company has already been closed. Thus, from the
allegation made in the FIR, it is evident that an amount of Rs. 01 lakh
though was entrusted to the applicant for deposition in the bonds, which
were to be encashed on its maturity after 06 years, however despite its
maturity the payment was not made to the applicant and the entire amount
has been swindled by the Company and the applicant being an agent and,
therefore, prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicant
and as such the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
NABAIL No. 5256 of 2026
4

9. I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the
record.

10. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant was merely acting as an
agent for the Company Veall Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited. He is also
said to have invested his own money and that of his relatives in the said
scheme. There is no allegation against the applicant that after getting
interim order from this Court on 03.07.2026, the applicant is not
cooperating in the investigation. The applicant has no reported criminal
antecedent to his credit. There is no allegation against the applicant that
he prepared a forged document in order to obtain funds from the
applicant. It was admitted by the learned A.G.A. during argument that the
applicant had provided bonds to the investigating officer and he is
cooperating in the investigation. It cannot be said at this stage that the
applicant had misappropriated or converted to his own use the deposits
made by the investors. In paragraph no. 21 of the counter affidavit filed
by the State of U.P., it was admitted by the investigating officer that in the
capacity of agent, the applicant induced the investors and the Company
has embezzled the amount which constitute an offence under Section
316(5) of B.N.S. No such allegation has been levelled against the
applicant that this was the applicant who embezzled the amount of the
investors.

11. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while
considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to
consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as
leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case,
while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether
to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

12. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1
Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
NABAIL No. 5256 of 2026
5

personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is
a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely
because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that
arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of
the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of
a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the
accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused.

13. In view of above facts and circumstances, the present anticipatory bail
application is allowed and the interim anticipatory bail granted to the
applicant vide order dated 03.07.2026 is hereby made absolute. The
applicant- Gauri Shankar @ Gauri Shankar Shukla will remain on
anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on the same terms and conditions
as given in the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by this Court in the present
case. For perusal of court concerned, the interim order dated 03.07.2026,
is quoted hereinbelow:

"1. Learned counsel for the applicant; and learned A.G.A. for
the State are present.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on
behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.19 of 2026, under
Section 316(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Unj,
District Bhadohi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail, till the conclusion of the trial, as the applicant apprehends
his arrest in the aforesaid case.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant
was merely an agent of VEALL Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited.
The allegation against the applicant is of inducing the
informant and certain other persons into investing different
NABAIL No. 5256 of 2026
6

sums of money with the promise of doubling the same within a
period of six years. He seeks anticipatory bail on the following
grounds :-

i. The applicant is not in-charge of the daily affairs of the
Company. He was merely an agent, who was employed by the
Company.

ii. The bonds were issued in favour of the investors and the
applicant was neither the custodian of the money nor was
required under the law to return the same.

iii. No offence under Section 316(5) of the B.N.S. is made out
against the applicant.

iv. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to
as 'SEBI') had initiated recovery proceedings against TOGO
Retail Marketing and its directors. He further contends that
certain writ petitions were filed before the Calcutta High Court
and the Calcutta High Court has constituted a one-member
committee with respect to certain groups of companies, which
also include TOGO Retail Marketing and the remedy open to
the informant and the other claimants would be of approaching
the one-member committee constituted by the Calcutta High
Court. The deposit confirmation certificates were issued to the
investors on behalf of VEALL Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited
and TOGO Retail Marketing Limited Group of Companies.
The learned counsel further contends that there is no allegation
that the deposit confirmation certificates were forged. There is
also nothing on record to indicate that it was the applicant, who
had misappropriated or converted to his own use the deposits
made by the investors. The applicant had invested his own
money and that of his family members in VEALL Mutual
Benefit Nidhi Limited and had he been a part of the supposed
conspiracy to defraud the investors, he would not have invested
NABAIL No. 5256 of 2026
7

his own money. The learned counsel has contended that the
police is continuously harassing the applicant under the
pressure of the investors and is trying to arrest him. Pressure is
being brought to bear on the applicant to return the money,
which has been taken by the company.

5. Learned A.G.A. has contended that similar contentions were
raised by the applicant before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.7322 of 2026 and, this court, while recording
detailed findings against the applicant, rejected his prayer for
quashing of the First Information Report (FIR).

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and gone through the allegations made
in the FIR as well as the material filed on the record.

7. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant was merely acting
as an agent for the Company, VEALL Mutual Benefit Nidhi
Limited. This Court, while rejecting the writ petition of the
applicant, in paragraph No.7, has made the following
observations:

"Having considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the allegation made in the impugned first information report,
it is evident that the petitioner was an agent of V.R. Mutual
Benefit Nidhi Ltd. and on his inducement an amount of Rs. 01
lakh was deposited with the company for which two
respective bonds were issued to the complainant on
assurance that on its maturity after 06 years, deposit made by
the complainant will be doubled and thus, there was a clear
breach of trust by the petitioner being an agent of the
company which was required to be paid back on its maturity,
however, the petitioner or the company of which the
petitioner was admittedly an agent swindled the said amount
and failed to make the payment and thus, misappropriated
the due amount which clearly constitute a prima facie offence
NABAIL No. 5256 of 2026
8

against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned FIR
cannot be quashed at this nascent stage which requires deep
probe and investigation".

8. The submissions made before this Court regarding
constitution of one member committee under the orders of the
Calcutta High Court or the proceedings initiated by the SEBI
appear not to have been brought to the notice of the writ Court.

9. The learned A.G.A. states that he shall obtain specific
instructions with respect to the role of the applicant in the
crime in question and also the material collected during
investigation. The same shall be filed by means of a counter
affidavit.

10. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant was merely acting
as an agent for the Company VEALL Mutual Benefit Nidhi
Limited. He is also said to have invested his own money and
that of his relatives in the said scheme.

11. In view of the contentions raised before this Court, a prima
facie case for grant of interim relief is made out.

12. Put up as fresh on 20.07.2026, by which date, the learned
A.G.A. shall file a counter affidavit, as mentioned above.

13. Till 20.07.2026, in the event of the arrest of the applicant-
Gauri Shankar @ Gauri Shankar Shukla, involved in the
aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on interim
anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned,
with the following conditions:-

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

ii. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
NABAIL No. 5256 of 2026
9

the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iii. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;

iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;

14. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the applicant."

14. In default or misuse of any of the conditions mentioned in the order
dated 03.07.2026, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first
informant-complainant would be at liberty to file appropriate application
for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the
concerned court.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 28, 2026
A.P. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…