Dismissed

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023ABAIL/400/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by a branch manager accused of financial fraud. The Court, considering the severity of the allegations and involvement in accounting, rejected the application for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected.

What the court decided

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172926

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 400 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Vijay Singh,Rajeev Kumar Agrawal

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar,Shiksha Singh Gautam

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Akhilesh Kumar Mishra in Case Crime No. 547 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Ballia.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA as well as Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶9

It appears from the perusal of the F.I.R. that co-accused Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya and Ajay Kumar Chaurasiya were founder of the Company 'Royal Symbol Real Estate and Agrotech Corporation Limited'. Subsequently one another Company in the name of 'Royal Symbol Farming Private Limited' was also constituted by them. Money was invested by the investors in the Company by which work of real estate was carried on by the Company. The present applicant is said to be the Branch Manager of the Company. It was also alleged that the Company had about 500 members who had invested about Rupees Six Crores in the Company and present applicant along with the co-accused was responsible for the accounting of the whole transaction. However, the money was not refunded to the investors and co-accused Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya and Ajay Kumar Chaurasiya absconded but they are still engaged in the said task through their agents. It also reveals from the record that a very meagre amount was refunded to the investors by the Company. It is also alleged that the present applicant is also enjoying with the money of the investors and payment of about 200 investors is still due to the Company. Investigation in the matter is going on.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. He has no criminal history to his credit. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that accusedapplicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation, therefore, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is brought to the notice of this Court that co-accused, Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya has been denied anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.681 of 2023 vide order dated 14.06.2023.

¶12

It has not been denied in this application that the applicant is not the Branch Manager / employee of the aforesaid Companies, although it is submitted that he was working only on the direction of co-accused Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya and Ajay Kumar Chaurasiya, the Directors of the Companies.

¶13

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.

¶14

Hence, 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶16

However, it is observed that the bail application of the

¶17

applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶18

It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra) , shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Atul

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sarvendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munish Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Swayam Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyapal Singh Deshwal Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Prasad Bari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sudha Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another