Allahabad High Court
Subhash Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:155391
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30744 of 2025
Subhash Agarwal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Abhishek Srivastava, Durga Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, as per instructions received from his client, submits that though pursuant to the lodging of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act in Case No. 785 of 2017 (old no. 91 of 2014), the applicant came to be summoned along with other co-accused on 27.03.2014 and the applicant was arraigned as an accused no. 3 in the complaint showing his address at Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, however, the applicant was out of India and was in abroad and the summons were not served upon him non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. came to be issued and the applicant is not the signatory of the cheque and he is a non-executive director, thus, he is not liable for the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act as at the time of the offence when committed he was not the in the in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. He submits that liberty be accorded to the applicant to file bail application and till the disposal of the same, no coercive action be taken and the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to non-holding of an inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases U/s 138 of the NI Act, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325 followed in Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Cooperaitve Society Ltd. Vs. Oneup Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LawSuit (SC) 1262 as well as the contentions so raised based upon the judgment be directed to be considered by the court below being (1) Susela Padmavathy Amma Vs. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited: (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 230, (2) Sunita Palita & others Vs. M/s Panchami Stone Quarry: (2022) 0 Supreme(SC) 637, (3) Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs. State of Maharashtra & another: (2014) 0 Supreme(SC) 903, (4) Bansilal S. Kabra Vs. Global Trade Finance Limited & another: (2024) LawSuit(Bom) 325, (5) K.S. Joseph Vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. & another: (2016) 0 Supreme(SC) 445.
2. Learned AGA has no objection to the same.
3. Considering the submissions so made across the bard, this Court taking into account the stand taken by the applicant as well as the fact that the summoning order is of the year 2014 and the present application has been preferred in the year 2025 and overall fact situation, the application stands disposed of directing the applicant to submit a bail application by 26.09.2025 and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the said application strictly in accordance with law as per the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021.
4. Till the bail application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in criminal proceedings of case no. 785 of 2017 (J.V.L. Agro Ltd. Industries Vs. Radhyeshyam Trading Company Ltd.), pending before Additional Court, Varanasi for the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
5. It goes without saying that once legal contentions sought to be raised as noticed above amongst others, the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
6. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 3, 2025
Rajesh
