Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2018BAIL/7317/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail granted to applicant aged 70 suffering ailments in fraud case. Court ordered conditional release with deposit of Rs. 25 lacs to ensure settlement with complainant.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon deposit of Rs. 25 lacs with court in name of complainant, furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to non-interference with trial and witnesses.

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7317 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Brijesh Sahai assisted by Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Zafeer Ahmad, leaned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the applicant with regard to case crime No.677 of 2014, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Highway, District Mathura. The said F.I.R. was lodged for an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 17.9.2010 and the prosecution version is that the said report has been lodged against three persons and the allegation in the F.I.R. is with respect to the Resolution dated 17.9.2010 passed by the applicant in his capacity as Director of Company which goes by the name and style of Karmayogi Builders Private Ltd (here-in-after referred to as K.B.P.L).

¶8

The first information report alleges that the applicant and the first informant are the Directors of K.B.P.L. and hence the applicant did not have any authority to unilaterally pass any resolution of the Company without the signature of the first informant. It is further submitted that the Company was delisted from 23.6.2007 to 28.5.2012, hence no resolution could have been passed by the Company. Further submission of the applicant is that vide Resolution dated 17.8.2010 the applicant has authorized co-accused to sell the land in Khasra No.95 of Village Nawada and as a result of the settlement the first informant alleges that the Company namely KBPL i.e. the first informant has suffered wrongful loss and wrongful gain has accrued to the applicant.The contention put forward by the applicant's counsel is that the Company was de-listed between the year 2007-2912, as such the applicant did not have any authority to pass any resolution. Secondly, the resolution that has been passed does not bear the signature of the first

¶9

informant, who is the other Director of KBPL as such the resolution was passed unilaterally which is illegal and the same was with respect to the settlement of a case relating to Khasra No.95 of Village Nawada which caused wrongful loss to KBPL and the proceeds of the sale have been divided amongst other accused.

¶10

The first informant-V.N.Agarwal, is represented by Sri Brijesh Sahai and Sri Rahul Sahai advocates, who had filed a protest petition against the final report dated 19.9.2014 and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 6.12.2014 rejected the final report and directed the police officials to conduct further investigation. It is made clear that the investigating officer in his final report had submitted that the agreement dated 3.6.2005, the property which is the bone of contention in the present case is no longer with KBPL as such V.N.Agarwal does not have any locus nor he is aggrieved.

¶11

Sri Anurag Khanna, learned senior advocate, Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Si Manish Tiwary pointed out that the co-accused Ajay Saxena was granted bail by the Court below through the order dated 28.2.2017 and in the order dated 28.2.2017 the counsel for the applicant had drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph nos. 60 & 61 of the said order. I have perused the order of the Court below dated 28.2.2017 passed in the case of co-accused, Ajay Saxena. In contravention of the argument of the applicant's counsel, the counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that applicant deserves no mercy as he has not only committed fraud on the complainant/first informant, V.N.Agawal, but has duped hundreds of investors.

¶12

Furthermore, Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the complainant/first informant has also stressed that it is not purely a civil dispute as pointed out by the applicant's counsel, but there is an element of crime in as much as because of the fact that fraud has been committed which has resulted into wrongful loss to one and wrongful gain to other.

¶13

In considered opinion of this Court no purpose would be served if the applicant remains behind bar, considering his age which is 70 years and also because of this fact that he is suffering from several ailments. The issue can be better redressed if the applicant is released on bail and an opportunity be given to him to settle the dispute with the complainant/first informant V.N.Agarwal.

¶14

Considering all other aspects of the matter it seems beyond doubt that the applicant had embezzled/misappropriated the

¶15

money, but he be given an opportunity for fair trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.12.2017.

¶16

It is further directed that the applicant will deposit an amount of Rs.25.00 lacs with the court concerned in the name of the complainant/first informant V.N.Agarwal and after depositing of the said amount the applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the court concerned. It is further observed that whatever proceedings are going on between the parties before any Forum i.e. Tribunal or Court will not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

¶17

It is made clear that if the applicant dose not fulfil the requirement mentioned above, the benefit of this order shall not be given to him. It is further made clear that by grant of bail by this Court the applicant Dinesh Kumar Agarwal cannot escape from the liability due on him with regard to the complainant as well as the investors.

¶18

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶19

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Dinesh Kumar Agarwal _ involved in Case Crime No.677 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Highway, District Mathura be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶21

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶22

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶23

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court

¶25

will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶26

Order Date : 19.3.2018

¶27

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pappu @ Krishna Murari Vs State of U.P.

Ramayan Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Damyanti Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Lalta Yadav Vs State of U.P.