Allahabad High Court
Mohit Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 July, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107574 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16503 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohit Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mehul Khare,Samarth Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mehul Khare along with Mr. Samarth Sinha, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing CBI.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Mohit Agarwal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case No. 1305 of 2024, under sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad, District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial i.e. Regular Case No. 1202024A0005, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad, District-Ghaziabad now pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 5.3.2024, a belated F.I.R. dated 6.3.2024 was lodged by first informant Shelendra Kumar Singh and was registered as Case No. 1305 of 2024, under sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad, District- Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. the applicant has been nominated as solitary named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that on the complaint made by the complainant Shilendra Kumar Singh that applicant has demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for settling the first loan account of the complainant, a CBI trap was laid on 6.3.2024. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was recovered from another person in another room of the concerned bank. However, the result of chemical test conducted to ascertain as to whether, the bribe offered was accepted by the applicant or not, the same is in negative i.e. in favour of applicant.
6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, CBI proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapther-XII Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, CBI has submitted a charge sheet dated 1.5.2024, whereby applicant has been charge sheeted, under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC.
7. Mr. Mehul Khare, the learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that father of the complainant had taken loan from the bank. However, he committed default in the re-payment of loan. As such, the loan account in respect of the loan taken by the father of the complainant was declared NPA. However, in order to overcome the same, the father of complainant, took two additional loans and the borrowed amount was transferred to the loan account of the first loan taken by the father of complainant. Since the entire transaction has been done in black and white, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant has committed any illegality in adjusting the borrowed amount to the loan account of the first loan taken by the father of complainant. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that it cannot be said that applicant had demanded any money for doing favour to the father of complainant. As such, no demand in lieu of an alleged act (favour to the loanee) can be said to be made out against applicant. On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 Online SC 1724 is fully attracted in the present case in favour of the applicant.
8. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 7.3.2024. As such, he has undergone five months of incarceration. Police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 373. Apart from above, it is further contended that the amount of bribe alleged to have been recovered from another accused is only Rs. 18,000/-. No departmental proceedings have been initiated by the bank against the applicant for the alleged misconduct as pleaded by CBI. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.
9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing CBI have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General submits that since allegations have also emerged against the applicant as per the charge sheet, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application for bail with reference to the record at this stage.
10. Having heard Mr. Mehul Khare along with Mr. Samarth Sinha, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for CBI, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that the amount of bribe alleged to have been paid by applicant was not recovered from the person of applicant but from another person in another room of the bank, the result of the chemical test undertaken to ensure as to whether, the amount of bribe offered was accepted by the applicant or not, is in the negative, therefore, prima-facie, the charge, under section 7 of the PC Act cannot be said to be made out against applicant, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the Constitution Bench judgment of Neeraj Dutta (Supra), is fully attracted in favour of the applicant, the learned counsel representing CBI could not point out from the record as to what illegaity has been committed by the applicant in discharge of his duties, there is nothing on record to show that departmental proceedings were initiated by the bank in respect of the acts of the applicant complained of, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the elarned counsel representing CBI could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live law (SC) 373 (Para 5), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing CBI in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.
12. Let the applicantMohit Agarwal, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Arshad