Court refused anticipatory bail and held no exceptional grounds existed. Applicant directed to surrender within 60 days or face coercive action, with prayer for bail to be considered thereafter under settled law.
Anticipatory bail denied; applicant to surrender within 60 days for bail consideration; otherwise coercive action applicable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6954 of 2021
Applicant :- Kunwar Krishna Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Bhushan,Amrendra Nath Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
The applicant has appeared in person and has submitted that on account of lawyers' strike, his lawyers are not cooperating. He has made an application before the Court for permission to appear in person.
Application is allowed.
The applicant is permitted to argue his case in person.
Heard Kunwar Krishna Agrawal, applicant in person, and learned A.G.A for the State.
Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application
This exemption application is allowed.
Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Kunwar Krishna Agrawal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 41 of 2021, under Sections- 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sigra, District- Varanasi, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation against the applicant that he has induced the informant to invest an amount of more than one crore rupees in a company situated in Indonesia and the money invested is not being returned. The applicant has got the investment made on the basis of a fabricated bank guarantee and has caused monetary loss to the informant.
The applicant has submitted that the allegations are against his son and co-accused, Suyash Agarwal, and he has been falsely implicated. He has no role in the entire offence alleged against him and his son.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application of
the applicant and has pointed out that the allegations have been made against the applicant and his son both. The arguments that he has not been implicated for the alleged offence is not correct. Even otherwise, the offence is of serious nature amounting to offence of fraud and cheating. The applicant does not deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He has criminal history of two cases as is evident from the pleadings of this application itself.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the request of the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.3.2021 KS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether exceptional grounds are made out to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant charged with cheating and fraud.
What conditions must the applicant fulfill to obtain bail once arrested.
What consequences follow if the applicant fails to appear before the trial court within the stipulated time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶17
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶18
2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶18
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kunwar Krishna Agrawal
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
