Allowed

Abhishek Agrawal v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023ABAIL/11433/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case pending investigation, granting protection until filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. conditioned on personal bond and availability for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties.

Abhishek Agrawal Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201868

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11433 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishek Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Keerti Mishra,Jayendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Abhishek Agrawal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0030 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 66 D of Information Technology Act, 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime Police Thana, Mirzapur, District Mirzapur.

¶7

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

¶8

On the false pretext of installing the mobile tower, Rs.7,52,995 were grabbed by the named accused persons from the informant through Net banking, but no tower was installed. F.I.R. was lodged on 9.12.2022 under sections 419, 420 and 66 D Information Technology Act, however during investigation sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC were added in the matter and the name of the present applicant came to surface as involved in the criminal conspiracy of the commission of the alleged crime.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He is only running a cyber cafe and doing the work of web designing for his customers. It is further submitted that no money has been received by him from the informant in his bank account or through cash. His name does not find place in the F.I.R. of the case itself. Applicant is not involved in the business of installation of mobile towers and he has absolutely no concern with the alleged crime. He has no criminal history. The investigation of the case is goingon and charge-sheet has not been filed and applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and has been available to the I.O.

¶10

It is also submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

In the present matter after lodging of the F.I.R., investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the record that the applicant has been cooperating with the investigation. No criminal history of the applicant has been brought to the notice of the Court.

¶14

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.

¶15

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 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.

¶16

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts

¶17

and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶18

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 ss

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhishek Agrawal v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Agrawal v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

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

Devi Lal Patel Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rupesh Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others