Allowed

Amit Khandel Wal v. Cbi/Scb Lucknow

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024ABAIL/1815/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Amit Khandelwal in a money laundering and corruption case. Having considered the applicant's cooperation with the investigation and applicable Supreme Court precedents, the court made the interim protection absolute, directing the trial court to grant bail upon summons.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted earlier vide order dated 20.08.2024 was made absolute; applicant to be released on bail by trial court upon summons with personal bond and sureties.

Amit Khandel Wal vs Cbi/Scb Lucknow — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62955

¶2

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1815 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Khandel Wal Opposite Party :- Cbi/Scb Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Prakash,Pranjal Krishna,Suhaib Ashraf Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Crime No. RC 03(A)/2022, Police Station CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Section 120B r/w 406 and 420 IPC & Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by Shri Anurag Singh learned counsel for CBI is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for CBI.

¶7

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 20.08.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶8

"1. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant Amit Khandelwal seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. RC 03(A)/2022, Police Station CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Section 120B r/w 406 and 420 IPC & Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC ACt, 1988.

¶9

2. Heard Mr. Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶10

3. Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶11

4. Prosecution case is that the case was registered on 2.8.2022 against the named accused persons in the F.I.R. It is alleged that M/s Atarson Overseas Private Ltd. Bareilly during the period 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2019 through its Directors in criminal conspiracy with each other defrauded the Punjab National Bank, Izzat Nagar Branch, Bareilly to the tune of Rs.43.98 crores by way of diverting/siphoning of the loan proceeds. It is further alleged that instead of using that money in running the Rice Mill the borrowers actually purchased the gold from the borrowed loan money.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the charge-sheet it is alleged that the applicant was working as a sales man in M/s Khandelwal Furniture. It is further alleged in the charge-sheet that he was proprietor of M/s Amit Jewellers who sold gold to the borrowers in alleged criminal conspiracy.

¶13

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although in paragraph 16.10 of the charge-sheet it is alleged that M/s Brijbasi Jewellers, M/s S.B. Ornaments Private

¶14

Limited, M/s Radha Mohan Purushottam Das Agarwal and M/s Radha Mohan Purushottam Das Jewels have also sold gold to the accused persons, however, for the reasons best known to the C.B.I. they have not been arrayed as an accused. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶15

7. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has relied upon the judgement dated 11.7.2022 passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others (SLP (Crl) No.5191/2021) (emphasized on paragraph 90) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not advisable on the part of the court to categories all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis.

¶16

8. He has further relied on judgment dated 21.3.2023 passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others (SLP (Crl) No.5191/2021) which deals with the cases of anticipatory bail and while emphasizing paragraph (v) of the judgement submitted that the principles laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil for regular bail would equally apply to anticipatory bail cases as anticipatory bail after all is one of the species of a bail.

¶17

9. He next relied upon the judgement dated 20.3.2023 of Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 376/2023 where the issue how the court deals with the anticipatory bail where a person has cooperated with the investigation but never arrested and chargesheet has been filed, has been dealt with.

¶18

10. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicant, however he could not deny the fact that four jewellers/firms, who have participated in the transaction, as stated in paragraph 16.10 of the charge-sheet, have not been arrayed as an accused. The reasons assigned by the learned counsel for the CBI is that these firms were found in running condition whereas the firm of the applicant was a fake firm.

¶19

11. Perused the record.

¶20

12. On due consideration to the judgments dated 11.7.2022 and 21.3.2023 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Mahdoom Bava (supra) and the facts that the applicant is not named in the FIR, during investigation he was not arrested, he has cooperated in the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, summons were issued to the applicant, who appeared on the first summon, the material collected by the CBI during investigation and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant till the next date of listing.

¶21

13. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Amit Khandelwal shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶23

(ii) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶24

(iii) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶25

(iv) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail.

¶26

Such other reasonable conditions which the learned trial court may deem fit may be imposed.

¶27

14. List on 28.8.2024 along with CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1765 of 2024 and CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1783 of 2024.

¶28

15. In the meantime, learned counsel for the C.B.I. shall file counter affidavit."

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in

¶30

the matter has been filed. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶31

Learned counsel for CBI has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶32

On due consideration to the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Mahdoom Bava v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299" as well as considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed in the matter; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted vide order dated 20.08.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶33

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, if the applicant is summoned to face trial for offence in question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶34

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶35

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶36

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶37

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶38

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶39

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial

¶40

court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶41

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶43

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 R.C.

¶44

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Khandel Wal v. Cbi/Scb Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Khandel Wal v. Cbi/Scb Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yunus Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Manmohan Yogi Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy. Home Civil Sec. Lko

Pintu Alias Sher Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Mohammad Shuaib Beg @ Shibu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ramesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.