Dismissed¶¶16

Purushottam Agrawal v. State of Up

Allahabad HC26 May 2025ABAIL/10288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail DISMISSED — Purushottam Agrawal v. State of U.P., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Dr. Gautam Chowdhary J., 14.7.2025, Crl. Misc. AB U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 10288 of 2024; FIR No. 294/2023, Sections 420, 406; insufficient grounds held; applicant kept free to seek regular bail before trial court; Satendra Kumar Antil (SLP(Crl.) 5191 of 2021) guidelines to govern trial-court decisions; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (2011) 1 SCC 694 principles noted.

What did the court decide?

After hearing counsel for both sides and weighing the submissions in the application, the court held that several proper and sufficient grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant do NOT appear. ¶¶13

Purushottam Agrawal vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the applicant (Purushottam Agrawal) in respect of FIR No. 294/2023, registered under Sections 420 and 406. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

Accordingly, the aforesaid anticipatory-bail application was rejected by the court.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

¶¶13

Key takeaways

Notwithstanding the refusal, the applicant remains free to present a regular bail application before the concerned trial court whenever such an application is required.ratio¶¶14
The trial court, in deciding any such bail application, is to bear in mind and apply the necessary directives/guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI.ratio¶¶15
The court further directed that notice of this order be brought to the attention of the courts concerned (designated authority partly garbled in source).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; order dated 14.7.2025) dismissed Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 10288 of 2024 moved by applicant Purushottam Agrawal against the State of U.P., arising out of FIR No. 294/2023 registered under Sections 420 and 406. Having heard both sides and reviewed the material — including the applicant's assertions of no criminal antecedents, no earlier such case against him, and an undertaking to appear before the magistrate/police/court as required and to assist the investigation — the Judge held that sufficient and proper grounds for anticipatory bail did not appear, and rejected the application. The court invoked Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, noting the Supreme Court's position that investigating authorities must weigh the suspect's fundamental rights, ensure access to investigative information, and consider the impact of arrest on the accused and his family. While refusing anticipatory bail, the court left the applicant free to move the concerned trial court with a regular bail application and directed that any such plea be considered and decided keeping in view the directives issued by the Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (SLP(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided 07.10.2021); notice of the order was to be brought to the courts concerned. The application stood disposed of with these directions.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112833

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10288 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Purushottam Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Shekhar Gangal,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

आववदककवववददनअधधवकद, पररवदददकवववददनअधधवकदएववरदजयकक ओरसवउपसससतववददनअपरशदसककयअधधवकदककससनदतसदपतदवलदकद पररशदलनवकयद।

¶7

2. वतरमदनअवगमजमदनतआववदनपत, मस०अ०सव० 294/2023 अवतररतधदरद 420, 406, सदनदखखर, धजलदअलदरढममअवगमजमदनतककमदवरकरतवहहए इसपदसरनदकवसदसपसतसतवकयदरयदहखवकवररफतदरदककसससवतममआववदक ककजमदनतपरररहदवकयदजदए।

¶8

3. पररवदददकवववददनअधधवकदददरदववचदरणनयदयदलयकवआदवशफलककक अदतनपवतधलवपददधखलककरयद, इसवपतदवलदपरफलखर- X कवरपममरखद जदय।

¶9

3. आववदककवववददनअधधवकदददरदतकरवदयदरयदहखवकआववदकवनदरषहख तसदउसवआशवकदहखवकउसवउपयसरकमदमलवममवररफतदरवकयदजदसकतदहख , जबवकउसकवववरदककईववशवसनदयसदकयनहहहख।आरवयहभदपसतसत वकयदरयदहखवकआववदकककइसमदमलवममअवतररमआदवशपदपहखतसदइस मदमलवममआववदकववचदरणनयदयदलयददरदवनयतवतधसययपरउपसससतभदहक रहदहख।आववदकददरदउकअपरदधकदररतनहहवकयदरयदहख।आववदककद ककईआपरदधधकइवतहदसनहहहखतसदआववदककवववरदअबतकककई बलपपवरकपवकयदजदरदनहहककरईहख।यहभदपसतसतवकयदरयदवकआववदक जदवचतसदपरदकणकवददरदनसहयकरकरनवकदवचनदवतदहखतसदवहजदवच

¶10

एजमसद/पसधलस/नयदयदलयददरदअप व कतहकनवपरउपसससतहकरद।यहकहदरयद हखवकयवदआववदकककअवगमजमदनतददजदतदहख , तकवहजमदनतकक सवतवततदकददसरपयकरनहहकरवरदऔरजदवचममसहयकरकरवरदऔरजमदनतकक सभदशतरवकदपदलनकरवरद।

¶11

4. पररवदददकवववददनअधधवकदएववववददनअपरशदसककयअधधवकदददरद आववदककवअवगमजमदनतकदववरकधवकयदवकयदतसदआरवयहतकरपसतसत वकयदरयदवकअवभयसकअवतररमजमदनतपदपकरनवकवउपरदवतववचदरण नयदयदलयददरदवनयतवतधसययपरउपसससतनहहहकरहदहखवनयदवयकपवकयद ममसहयकरपददननहहवकयदजदरहदहख।आववदककदअवगमजमदनतपदसरनदपत वनरसतवकयवजदनवयकगयहख।

¶12

5 . यहपदस व रकतथययहभदहखवक Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 कवमदमलवमममदननदय उचचतमनयदयदलयददरदयहअवधदररतवकयदरयदहखवकअवगमजमदनत यदवचकदपरनयदय-वनणरयनकरतवसमयनयदयदलयककआरकपयककपककवतऔर रवभदरतद, आरकपदककनयदवयकपवकयदसवभदरनवककसवभदवनदपरववचदरकरनद चदवहएऔरयहवकनयदयदलयककआरकपदकवववरदउपलबधसभदसदमगदकद सदवधदनदसवमपलयदवकनकरनदचदवहएऔरआरकपदककवदसतववकभपवमकदपर भदववचदरकरनदचदवहए।

¶13

6. उभयपकयकवववददनअधधवकदरणककससननवऔरवतरमदनआववदनममवकए रएकसनयपरववचदरकरनवकवउपरदवत , यहनयदयदलयइसरदयपरहखवक आववदककवववददनअधधवकदददरदअवगमजमदनतदवनवकवधलएककईउपयसकएवव पयदरपआधदरनहहपसतसतवकयदरयदहख। आववदक कदयहअवगमजमदनतआववदनपत 7. तदन स दर , पसरषकतमअगवदल असवदकदर वकयदजदतदहख।

¶14

8. इसवददममयवदककईअवतररमआदवशहकतक, उसववनरसतसमझदजदय। 9. हदलद व क , आववदककवधलएसवबवधधतववचदरणनयदयदलयकवसमकवनयवमत जमदनतआववदनपतपसतसतकरनवकवधलएसवतवततदहख , यवदजमदनतकवधलए ऐसदककईआववदनसवबवधधतववचदरणनयदयदलयकवसमकपवशवकयदजदतदहख , तक

¶15

यहउममददककजदतदहखवकसवबवधधतनयदयदलय , नयदयदलयकवववववकऔर जमदनतदवनवममववचदरककवनय व ततकरनववदलववखधदवनकपदवधदनयककबदधधत वकयववबनद , मद०उचचतमनयदयदलयकवददरद Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) मम पवतपदवदतयदवनधद र रतजमदनतदवनवकवधलएआवशयकवदशद - वनदरशयककधयदन ममरखतवहहएउसपरववचदरकरवरदऔरफखसलदकरवरद।

¶16

10. उपयसरकवटपपवणयय / वनदरशयकवसदस , वतरमदनआववदनपतकदवनसतदररत वकयदजदतदहख।

¶17

11. कदयदरलयककवनदरवशतवकयदजदतदहखवकइसआदवशककपवतधलवप सवबवधधत/ ववचदरणनयदयदलयककअववलवबप व षतकरनदससवनसशचतकरम।

¶18

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 CP.sahani

¶19

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH SAHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Purushottam Agrawal v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Agrawal v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Chand and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Aniket Mishra @ Banti vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manju Verma vs State of U.P.

Prince vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another