Allowed

Ramji Agarwal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023ABAIL/9642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., noting their cooperative investigation and the allegations of cheque forgery and cheating. Conditions included availability for interrogation and prohibition on leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Ramji Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189281

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9642 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramji Agarwal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Saqib Meezan,Sharda Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Kumar Solanki,Pramod Bhardwaj,Vinay Kumar Upadhyay

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- 1. Ramji Agarwal 2. Manoj Agarwal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 257 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Sipri Bazar, District- Jhansi.

¶8

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that all the named accused persons including the present applicants have taken Rs.75 lacs on different dates from the informant and also Rs.35 lacs from his son Mukesh Kumar Agarwal in cash for some business transaction, subsequently the repayment cheques provided by them were dishonored and forged and fabricated cheque amounting to Rs.5 lacs which was fraudulently made as Rs.25 lacs was also handed over to the informant, when they refused to repay the whole amount FIR was lodged on 23.6.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that no money transaction ever took place between the informant and present applicants. It is further submitted that business transaction, if any, took place between the informant and co-accused Om Prakash Agarwal, Yogesh Agarwal, Aakash Agarwal and they are already detained in jail. It is further submitted that no money was given to the applicants in their bank account through RTGS or

¶10

cheque or even in cash. It is further submitted that at the same time no repayment cheque was issued by the present applicants in favour of the informant or his son and as such there is no documentary evidence to this effect that any money was borrowed by the present applicants from the informant or his son. Criminal history of the applicants has been well explained in the affidavit and the applicants are cooperative with the investigation of this case and are entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that all the accused persons belonged to one family and the present applicants are the main conspirator of the whole fraud and the money which was borrowed from the informant has been enjoyed by them. It is further submitted that during course of investigation ample and sufficient evidence has been collected against them so far but however they could not dispute this fact that no written transaction in respect of the borrowing of money as alleged in the FIR took place between the informant and the present applicants.

¶12

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, llikelihood 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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 a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶16

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶20

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramji Agarwal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Agarwal and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Mohd. Zakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhannar Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manvendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Digvijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Madhu Vs State of U.P.