Allowed

Ranjan Agrawal @ Rajendra Agrawal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022ABAIL/7466/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, this court allowed the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC following the arguments of the applicant regarding lack of credible evidence against him concerning alleged sale of pirated medical devices and his clean criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties and compliance with stipulated conditions.

Ranjan Agrawal @ Rajendra Agrawal Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7466 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjan Agrawal @ Rajendra Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.390/2021, under Sections 419/420 I.P.C., Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. According to prosecution version, during covid-19 pandemic period, applicant was found selling various medical health care devices, like disposal syringe and surgical mask etc. without any proper licence. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation that applicant was selling the pirated items are thoroughly false and that there is no such report that said articles were pirated or counterfeit. There is no independent witness of alleged incident. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has a valid licence for manufacturing of medical health care devices and that applicant has not prepared any counterfeit material. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against applicant. The investigation is complete and chargesheet has not been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during

¶8

investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ranjan Agrawal @ Rajendra Agrawal in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶15

(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 Neeraj

¶19

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.09.07 09:48:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjan Agrawal @ Rajendra Agrawal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Agrawal @ Rajendra Agrawal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aishwarya Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anurag Agnihotri @ Abhishek and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Gopal @ Kanha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Yadav @ Yogendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Babu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.